Belfast Self Employment

January 15th, 2007 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Technical and Training | No Comments »

BELFAST SELF EMPLOYMENT

Most UKMPA conference attendees will know that the situation in Belfast has been somewhat turbulent over the past three or four years. However on the 1^st of December 2006 the guns went quiet and in partnership with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners we signed contracts to outsource the pilotage to ourselves within the Belfast Lough. Read the rest of this entry »

E- Navigation

October 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Features, Technical and Training | No Comments »

E-NAVIGATION:

WHERE ARE WE AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?

The term e-Navigation first appeared formally just one year ago in a presentation given by Dr. Sally Basker of the General Lighthouse Authority (GLA) and was rapidly adopted by our own DfT who introduced it to a wider audience via a keynote speech to the Royal Institute of Navigation given by Dr. Stephen Ladyman, the shipping minister.

View the original illustrated pdf magazine article (Page 2):

pilotmag.co.uk/userfiles/Pilotmag%20287%20(Oct%2006).pdf

WHY IS IT NEEDED?

To minimise navigational errors, protect people and the environment, improve security and reduce costs for shipping.

HOW WILL IT BE DELIVERED?

By using satellite positioning systems underpinned by fail safe supplementary positioning systems displayed in an intelligible and comprehensively integrated format on board ship and replicated on shore with shore based monitoring and intervention capability.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

This is a very good question since as the expression gains momentum there are different interpretations emerging! However, at the time of writing the definition which has been adopted by IALA is:

“the collection, integration and display of maritime information onboard and ashore by electronic means to enhance berth-to-berth navigation and related services, safety and security at sea and protection of the marine environment.”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

At a recent IALA conference on e-Navigation it was stated that the following requirements would need to be met before the concept could be implemented effectively:

· Key structural components, including Electronic Navigation Charts (ENCs), principle position systems (GPS, Galileo) and failsafe back-up systems

· Standardised electronic format for ship/shore; ship/ship; shore/ship

· Means to prioritise data

· Enhanced Electronic Chart (ENC) systems

· Common standards for bridge/shore e-navigation systems / standards.

· Security through effective protocols

· Shore support systems linked nationally and internationally similar to air traffic control.

· Close collaboration with all relevant bodies and agencies.

With a view to achieving the above, a paper has been submitted to IMO proposing that e-Navigation be added to the work programme of the Sub-Committee of Navigation (NAV). However the IMO is still debating the implications of the concept and although it is likely that the carriage of an Electronic Chart display and Information System (ECDIS) or Electronic Navigation Chart (ENC) for all merchant vessels will become compulsory in the next few years the last meeting of the IMO Navigation sub committee (NAV 52) failed to endorse the overlay of additional information such as ARPA plots and AIS onto the ECDIS display. This decision has reigned in some of the more enthusiastic promoters of e-Navigation who see the future concentrated on ECDIS displaying “virtual” navigation aids and reflects the opinion that too much emphasis is being placed on unproven electronic data formats at the expense of proven traditional navigation methodology. IMO secretary-general Efthimios Mitropoulos believes that the ultimate aim of a future e-navigation strategy should be ‘to simplify, to the benefit of the mariner, the display of the real-time environment in which his or her ship navigates. Furthermore, the design of an all-embracing electronic system on the ship bridge should be such as not to reduce the navigator solely to the role of monitoring its function but ‘to enable him or her to obtain maximum navigational support and information to facilitate and ensure appropriate and timely navigational and anti-collision decision-making, in line with good seamanship.’ These are wise words indeed and very relevant given the statistics that despite the introduction of new navigation equipment the number of collisions and groundings remain unacceptably high even on board modern ships fitted with electronic charts. Bolting on an ECDIS displaying “virtual” navigation aids is not going to miraculously reduce the ship loss statistics without standardised displays and controls and a comprehensive training regime to enable watchkeepers to effectively integrate and interact within the e-Navigation concept. As pilots we are trained to integrate into the ship’s navigation regime frequently in total darkness and always within a very short time scale. This makes us ideal commentators on how appallingly inefficient the vast majority of ship’s bridges are. It is therefore worth examining in more detail the environment in which we and the average watch keeper operates.

BRIDGE LAYOUT

In order for the e-Navigation concept to be implemented effectively wheelhouse design will be of paramount importance. The glossy brochures display wonderful photographs of integrated bridges consisting of consoles containing radar and ECDIS displays and whilst these do exist on board some vessels the reality for the majority of ships is totally removed from this brochure image. Picture 3 shows the wheelhouse of a large bulk carrier built in 2005. Any navigating officer transported from the 1960’s onto this bridge would find it totally familiar! The traditional telegraph is on the port side, a helmsman’s / autopilot console is in the middle and two radars are to starboard. There are two VHF sets, one on each side of the bridge front and the chart room containing the GPS and AIS displays is to the rear of the radars where is can be screened off by a traditional curtain arrangement at night. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this wheelhouse so far as navigating in the traditional manner is concerned but for e-Navigation functionality it fails miserably!

The “ideal” integrated bridge is well illustrated in picture 4 which was taken on board a brand new 5000 tonne product tanker. When seated the watchkeeper has all relevant information readily available. The radar, ECDIS, echo sounder, autopilot and VHF are all to hand, although the crew had not yet got around to making and fitting the essential coffee mug holder! From the seated position the eye line of sight is above the console thus retaining the essential concept of a visual lookout. Constructed for the N Europe trade the vessel is fitted with two fully authorised independent ECDIS and had no paper charts and docking stations on each bridge wing made berthing / unberthing efficient. The vast majority of ships bridges fall somewhere between these two examples but many are very poor and not fit for purpose. The “integrated” bridge shown in picture 5 was taken on a 1000 tonne coaster and is a prime example of a poor layout. The chair is so low that when seated the watchkeeper can only see the radar and gyro repeater and has almost no view of the sea ahead! The autopilot and VHF are not easily reached and the chart table is to the rear so the e-Navigation concept is not going to be readily incorporated on this or the vast majority of vessels without a complete re-fit of the ship’s bridges and equipment.

THE EQUIPMENT

Compared to the airline and now even the road transport industries the navigational equipment to be found on the world’s merchant fleet is an appalling mix of units of generally poor quality frequently designed to satisfy the creative ideals of the manufacturer with little regard for the operational prioritisation needs of the end user. This woeful state of affairs was highlighted in Dr. Ladyman’s RIN speech where he stated, “… the bridge of a typical merchant ship is awash with different generations of navigation technologies – which are not always complementary. The display equipment isn’t integrated or prioritised. Value added data management is either limited or nonexistent. And what information is available, visual or otherwise, needs careful interpretation by experienced professionals. In short, mariners are asked to navigate with a variety of ‘bolt-ons’ to previous generations of technology.”

Starting from this level it is obvious that e-Navigation is not going to take over the world of merchant shipping for some considerable time!!

RADAR

In the 1960’s the the maritime press dealt with how radar should be incorporated into the watchkeeper’s duties and there was one point upon which all correspondents were agreed and that was that there should be universally standard layouts and controls. But by the time the specifications had been through the “consultation process” the only standardisation was on the basic controls and labelling. Once the sets became more sophisticated during the 1970’s with gyro inputs, true motion displays and Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA) any standardisation went overboard as manufacturers tried to outdo each other with additional features. The basic controls of the early models gave way to increasingly complex keyboard layouts which in turn evolved into the rollerball and button arrangement which requires every function to be accessed by the frustrating task of manipulating a cursor around the screen with many essential features hidden in sub menus resulting in a watchkeeper having to spend a considerable time learning how to undertake even quite basic operations. With crew changes frequently being done in just a few hours and the minimum manning resulting in officers being put to work on cargo and other duties the operation of key navigation equipment is often neglected and the manuals are generally too big and poorly written. I have frequently asked a watchkeeper to access a function on the radar only to be informed that he had only just joined the ship and hadn’t a clue! On one model I have found the range rings hidden in a secondary sub menu and it is generally just not worth bothering to even attempt to set up a parallel index tracking line with a rollerball and button control if sanity is to be retained!

New radars fitted after July 2008 will have to be fitted with an AIS overlay facility which is already appearing on board many vessels but these regularly display a considerable discrepancy between the radar and AIS plots as shown in picture 6. This AIS integration has even more worrying consequences in that currently there is no requirement for vessels (other than high speed craft) of less that 10,000grt to be fitted with an ARPA facility on the radar, so this means that there will be a tendency to use the AIS track for anti-collision work. There is a recommendation that only water tracking should be used for anti- collision work but AIS displays true Speed Over the Ground (SOG) and Course Over the Ground (COG) and AIS is not yet recognised as a collision avoidance procedure in the COLREGS. Consequently despite its imminent compulsory incorporation, many ship owners such as Maersk are instructing their Masters not to use the AIS overlay facility on the radar! To call the current situation a mess is a very polite understatement!!

ECDIS & ENC

For those unfamiliar with the terms, an ENC is basically a paper chart which has been scanned into an electronic format to be displayed on a computer and is termed a “raster” chart. Zooming in or out just magnifies or reduces the data from the chosen chart. An ECDIS is a “vector” chart format with layers so starting from a small scale only the basic outline information is displayed but zooming in reveals more features such as buoys, increased number of depth soundings, nature of bottom etc. A full ECDIS can therefore be interactive in that the navigator can program in depth parameters and if the ship is heading towards a danger then alarms will sound. It is this type of chart that can be used to replace a paper chart portfolio. Although vessels have been able to replace their charts with an authorised ECDIS system for over two years I have only piloted three vessels without paper charts which is less than 1%. The number of vessels fitted with a raster ENC is higher at around 25%.

Many observers are questioning why the uptake of electronic charts has been so slow. The answer is straightforward, it is not compulsory and in their present format many electronic charts are useless for practical navigation! A paper chart is a large document that can be opened out and the navigator can use a small scale chart for an overview of a proposed passage and easily plot a passage which can then be transferred to larger scale charts as required. This is safe and effective. The average electronic chart display is a 17 inch monitor so even plotting a short course is a challenge. A rough line can be created but then the navigator has to zoom in and scroll from screen to screen to verify that the course safely clears dangers which may not be displayed on the smaller scale chart. I have witnessed a watchkeeper totally distracted during a major part of the piloted passage whilst he attempted to plot a passage through the islands in the Baltic on an electronic chart and cursing the fact that he had no paper charts to plan on. An increasing number of companies are addressing this problem by publishing passage waypoints. This appears to be just what every navigator needs except that in the vastness of the open sea an increasing number of ships are now plotting their courses using published waypoints and the result has been an increasing number of collisions in the vicinity of these waypoints! The restricted screen size results in a raster chart displaying so many depth soundings that it is often difficult to see the charted features clearly. Zooming in on a larger scale chart will clarify the picture but then the distance shown ahead may then be less than two miles. Even worse is that on some makes of ENC the ship transits the screen in true motion thus providing an excellent record of where the ship has been rather than where it is going! One final major factor influencing ENC take up rates is that of after sales support. I have piloted several well equipped ships with a fine electronic chart which is out of date because the manufacturer has gone out of business. As with radars the manufacture and supply of electronic charts will inevitably end up in the hands of a few large companies and it is therefore understandable that owners will want to ensure that their chart supplier will be able to offer full support before making what is a considerable investment.

PRACTICAL USAGE

At a glance, the navigator can see his vessel superimposed on the chart with all the navigation marks readily identifiable but the vast majority of the ENCs in use are not official ECDIS and therefore come with a warning that they are NOT to be used for navigation! Of course this warning is invariably ignored and an investigation into a recent grounding revealed that the Master was navigating on an out of date electronic chart that he had downloaded from the Internet. Another grounding of a prestigious cruise liner resulted from the failure of the GPS connection which caused the ENC to default to dead reckoning position mode. The GPS failure went unnoticed for two days and no checks were made by other navigation methods until the vessel came to an abrupt stop! It would seem that the presence of an ENC seems to lull the watchkeepers into a false sense of security and to overcome this torpor it would be very simple for the manufacturers to incorporate a flashing warning on the screen when the GPS signal is lost or weak that couldn’t be removed until the problem had been resolved.

Earlier I mentioned the new tanker with an ECDIS in place of paper charts. With two independent units served by separate DGPS receivers, failure of both units simultaneously is unlikely and therefore in practical terms position failure will only occur if the satellite network is disabled. However ECDIS chart coverage is currently far from complete and chartless ships are therefore restricted to certain areas such as North Europe and parts of the USA. On this particular vessel the ECDIS was spot on at the commencement of the passage but later on serious anomalies were observed when the radar and AIS vectors of other vessels were overlaid on the ECDIS. Pictures 7 & 8 are very revealing in that they show how a discrepancy can introduce an element of doubt into the situational awareness. Picture 7 is displaying the AIS and ARPA track of a vessel passing a buoy so which side of the buoy did the vessel pass? The visibility was good so I could see that the AIS track was the correct one but in reduced visibility there would be confusion and doubt. Picture 8 reveals another confusing situation. Here the AIS and two radars are sending tracks onto the ECDIS, none are aligned. A check with a fixed navigation mark revealed that during the passage the radar and ECDIS correlation had become displaced by around one cable. The “tech-savvy” Russian Mate stated that he could re-align the displays but this shouldn’t be necessary and the error highlights how the integration of navigation displays has not yet been perfected and could lead to an incorrect interpretation of a developing situation. Since ECDIS will be a core component of e-Navigation in my opinion such serious errors call into question the whole concept.

AIS

The compulsory carriage of AIS was pushed through at far too great a speed for the system to be properly incorporated as part of the ship’s navigation equipment and consequently on the vast majority of ships it is just another box which is placed on any spare space on the bridge. Generally it is only used when the watchkeeper wants to identify another vessel so that he can call it up on VHF and negotiate a developing situation rather than rely on the COLREGS! One reason for the acceleration of AIS implementation was the USA’s anti terror policy which under its Maritime Domain Awareness programme is seeking to track and monitor every vessel bound for the USA from loading port to destination. AIS is part of the development of a Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) network currently being progressed through IMO into a SOLAS requirement and AIS & LRIT represent the other key element of the e-Navigation agenda. The e-navigation implementation process is now being driven by the perceived needs of shore administrations rather than an actual need by the mariner who, as usual, has been sidelined from the debate. Fortunately pilots have attended the relevant IMO sessions and have at least been able to speak with considerable authority on the issues as a result of their involvement in the Maritime Navigation and Information Services (MarNIS) project which is explained in detail on page 7.

Prior to the USA security agenda the primary promoters of AIS were the ports who saw AIS as the key to the “Holy Grail” of Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) control of shipping replacing pilots. However, although effective when functioning correctly, AIS useage has revealed many shortfalls and if, as envisaged, its role is enhanced to underpin the e-Navigation agenda then more problems can be anticipated. Many of the AIS issues have been well documented in previous issues of The Pilot.

VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES (VTS)

Proponents of VTS see shore-based operators replacing pilots on board ships by offering e-Navigation control of shipping and the preferred terminology is now Vessel Traffic Management Systems (VTMS). For years many voices, ignorant of how shipping movements in port are handled by pilots, have questioned why shipping cannot be controlled in the same manner as aircraft are by air traffic control. The arguments put by pilots as to why ATC methodology cannot be applied to shipping have been supported by trials which always reveal that positive control of shipping by shore is non viable. AIS and the e-Navigation concept has revived the agenda but whilst it is true that modern VTS centres have far more sophisticated tracking ability, the complexities of varying ship types, speeds and tracks still prevent the VTS from being capable of positive control of shipping.

To date VTS hasn’t had a great success rate in preventing collisions and groundings as dramatically revealed by the Karen Danielson collision with the Great Belt West Bridge and is also interesting to note that because VTS is currently just an aid to navigation MAIB investigations into incidents in ports operating VTS have concentrated on the actions of the vessels but not the VTS involvement. Obviously, if VTMS is to evolve to take direct control of vessel movements then the liability issues will need to be carefully examined by the VTMS authority who will also need to bear in mind that its role in any incident will be examined by investigators. The arguments for and against VTMS are many and varied and worthy of a full feature but suffice to say at this stage that no system is currently capable of reproducing the real time situational awareness and vessel control available to the pilot or Master on the bridge.

PORT APPROACH DOCKING SUPPORT SYSTEM (POADSS)

Pilots cannot remain detached from new technology and within Europe, as part of the MarNIS project, EMPA have been project leaders on the finely named POADSS concept which has evolved from the IPPA project. POADSS is basically a laptop with very high specification for information input and accuracy designed to be taken on board by a pilot. The first units are due to be trialled next spring and the pilot will be able to access and prioritise data and information relevant to the pilotage passage. With nearly all data available to the VTS accessible directly by the pilot I believe that the logical progression for PODSS should be towards port control becoming “silent VTS” data processing centres. This may seem a provocative pilot biased statement but in my opinion an independent analysis of what information is transmitted by VTS and how it is used by those on board would find that most of the information could be accessed / disseminated directly from source to user.

For example, in London live tide data is broadcast every half hour but often vessels call for updates between broadcasts to check on how the tide is making. The relevant tide gauges are transmitting data continuously so it would be far more efficient if the pilot were able to interrogate the gauge directly. Another example is requesting a change in berthing time. Through POADSS a pilot could interrogate the berth to find out if it is free or what time the vessel on the berth is programmed to depart and then send an ETA either to the agent or directly to the berth, boatmen and tugs etc.

These are just two examples but the vast majority of data and information handled by VTS could be accessed and transmitted directly between facilities and ships.

Obviously ports need to monitor and record the traffic in their area but I believe that a port VTS centre designed to handle and process a port’s administrative function rather than seeking to become involved in the on-board navigation process would evolve into a different management and layout of VTS centres than currently exists.

CONCLUSION

A basic factor of e-Navigation is that it is administration-driven, not user-driven and the users do not particularly need or want it! In order to be fully operational and fulfil the aims of its promoters it needs:

· Worldwide ECDIS coverage.

· Worldwide GNSS coverage.

· Worldwide communication equivalent to

• Broadband for every SOLAS vessel.

This latter communications link will require its own constellation of satellites (opinion stated by the Comite International Radio-Maritime) which won’t be cheap. Currently there are a series of conferences and seminars being devoted to e-Navigation and I hope to bring some feedback from these in a future issue. Meanwhile it is interesting to note that a powerful driving force behind e-Navigation is our own DfT who believe that that it should be planned and implemented in a coherent way. Unfortunately the rapid and diverse development in technology is now producing a flood of low cost equipment of variable quality, performance and utility onto the market which may actually worsen navigational safety. This factor has led most maritime experts to the conclusion that the implementation of e-Navigation is a very long way off indeed.

RCH AND

CONS

MarNIS

October 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Technical and Training | No Comments »

Maritime Navigation and Information Services - MarNIS.

www.marnis.org

MarNIS is a fairly complex project and Gareth Rees,

Southampton pilot and Chairman of the T&T committee has

helpfully provided the following information

MarNIS is an EU funded Project started in November 2004, executed by the European Directorate for General Transport and Energy (DGTREN), to develop Maritime Navigation and Information Services across Europe.

There are 13 EU Member States involved in the project providing 44 partners and 12 sub-partners. EMPA President, Juha Tulimaa, is a member of the Advisory Board which monitors, assesses and guides MarNIS at all stages of its development.

The main objectives are:

· Improvement of safety and the protection of the environment

· Improvement in security

· Improvement of efficiency and reliability

· Improvement of the economic aspects of sea transport _ Improvement of the legal and organizational aspects.

The project is divided into five main groups, or “clusters”:

Cluster 1 looks at Maritime Information Management.

Cluster 2 deals with technology for navigation, communication and information systems.

Cluster 3 deals with Pro-active and remedial structures to improve safety and environmental protection of maritime transport operations.

Cluster 4 covers Information Services and Port Operations.

Cluster 5 examines Onboard information services.

Each Cluster is sub divided into Work Packages (WPs).

WP 4.2, under the leadership of EMPA, is working on developing the Port Approach Docking Support System (POADSS). The object of this system is to improve the safety and efficiency in ports and their approaches while improving accessibility for vessels navigating at the extreme limits of their channels and fairways. In association with POADSS is the development of a dynamic passage concept that predicts and monitors the dynamic (actual) underkeel clearance during the planned passage by using real time meteorological and hydrological information in conjunction with very accurate Real Time Kinematic (RTK) positioning. The key to these advances is the addition of a vertical position to an accuracy of 5 cms, combined with an accuracy of 2cms in the horizontal position. When this information is compared to real time tidal data and chart data, then the actual UKC is determined. i.e. squat can be measured.

Other partners in the group include the Italian company THETIS who are responsible for developing the hardware and the German company Seven C’s who are developing the software. Through a Wifi broadband connection to POADSS the Pilot will receive a presentation of the VTS/AIS Traffic image; along with other data relevant to the planned passage and ENC updates. The aim is that VTS will provide the Strategic role and Pilots the Tactical Role EMPA are also taking part in WP4.1 which is looking at VTMS. It is anticipated that WP 4.1 & WP 4.2 will combine in the next phase in developing a full POADSS trial system in the Port of Lisbon.

Gareth Rees Chairman T&T committee.

AIS Y-tronic Bluetooth Connector

October 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Technical and Training | No Comments »

Y-tronic AIS Bluetooth connector.

As mentioned in The Pilot (April issue 285) Y-Tronic have developed hardware to provide wireless communication between a ship’s pilot plug and a pilot’s laptop. The equipment was sent to Milford Haven for practical trials and the following is a report on the unit by Milford Haven pilot, Ed Neale.

The hardware consists of the following:

· Blue tooth transmitter

· USB battery

· A cable to connect the battery to the transmitter.

· A cable to connect the transmitter to the pilot plug

· 240v USB charger for the battery pack

With a weight of 350g the equipment, less the USB charger, was carried quite comfortably in my pilot coat pocket. Setting up the cables is a little complicated, and although incorporating the battery within the transmitter would make the unit bigger it would reduce the complexity of the set up procedure. Once all items were connected the signal was received by the laptop without problems. The battery can be charged by several means and the level of charge can be monitored at the touch of a button.

The data from the pilot plug includes own vessel’s position, dimensions, heading etc. although the amount and quality of data depends on the installation on board. Other vessels AIS data is also received. The presentation of the data will depend on the software used. For the trial I had a demonstration version of Y-Tronic’s own software. This gave a display similar to a radar with targets plotted according to their range and bearing. Triangles indicated the approximate ship’s heading of the targets.

It was possible to display targets in list format, in order of distance from own ship. Again this is similar to the display option on many AIS receivers fitted to ships today. The demo version of the software would not run for more than a few minutes so it was not possible to fully assess the reliability of the data being received. A more useful display may include an electronic chart display, with AIS targets overlaid onto the chart. This is the format we are currently using at Milford, with QASTOR software supplied by QPS. This software plots other AIS targets as ship’s outlines, having received the dimensions, position and heading of targets from the AIS data stream. Unfortunately I was unable to configure this software to run with the Y-Tronic hardware because of the QASTOR version in use at Milford. It was disappointing to note that the YTronic software could not be run on a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) which would offer a system that could be carried in a pilot’s coat pocket. Milford Haven pilots are issued with PDAs and I was able to establish a connection with the Blue tooth transmitter but was unable to make use of the data.

To sum up, the Y-Tronic system provides a robust, low cost means of providing AIS information to a pilot’s laptop unit. The hardware could be simplified into one unit containing the transmitter, battery and pilot plug connector which would reduce set up times, an important factor in any equipment regularly used by pilots.

Consideration of PDA based software would make the system more portable and user specific.

Ed Neale

Y-tronic: www.y-tronic.com

email: info@y-tronic.com

Automatic Mooring Systems

July 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Features, Technical and Training | No Comments »

Automatic Mooring Systems

One of the highest risks to crews occurs during mooring and unmooring operations and another of the unacknowledged roles of the pilot is to ensure that the vessel is kept under control in frequently difficult and sometimes marginal conditions until the mooring operation is completed. Standing on an exposed bridge wing in a gale being lashed by a blizzard every pilot looks at the average mooring equipment and methodology of the mooring procedure and realises that the only aspect of the operation that has changed since the invention of the mechanical mooring winch in the 19^th century is that there are now less crew to operate them and the whole process of stoppering off ropes and wires (yes it still happens even on brand new ships!) and turning them up on bitts takes longer than it ever did!! Even on vessels equipped with mooring winches once the ship is in position the agony is prolonged as the moorings are then slacked down and a crew man grabs an improvised metal hook and hauls the mooring through a slot on the main winch onto a secondary drum where the turns must fill the drum and not overlap. Trying to hold a vessel under control whilst the elements do their damndest to defeat you brings two thoughts to mind. Firstly, we are not paid enough for the responsibilities that we shoulder and the second is, surely there must be a better way of mooring a ship in the 21^st century!! Well there is good and bad news here. The good news is that I am aware that two companies are now manufacturing and installing automatic mooring systems. However, before you all get too excited, these systems are expensive and require the shore to redesign their jetty configuration and most of all take full responsibility for the safety of the vessel whilst alongside. One system also requires specialist deck fittings. So the concept is fine for regular trades such as ferries and passenger vessels but for the other berths I think that we will just be watching with envy as the freight ferry slides into position, is grabbed or sucked alongside, and rings finished with engines all in the space of a few minutes!!

View the original pdf illustrated article from the magazine:

pilotmag.co.uk/userfiles/Pilotmag%20286%20(Jul%2006).pdf

However, it is interesting to examine the three systems currently in use provided by two manufacturers.

Vacuum Mooring

So far as I can ascertain the first company to establish a vacuum automatic mooring system was Mooring Systems Limited (MSL) who designed and manufactured the “Iron Sailor” vacuum system. MSL equipment has been adopted by several shipping and port companies especially in Australia and New Zealand.

Internal flush mounted.

The first “Iron Sailor” system, was installed on the rail passenger ferry Aratere (150m, 12,000 grt.) and since being commissioned in 1990 it has safely handled over 10,000 automatic mooring operations. This system is a specific ship based system that comprises of 4 units rated at 20 tonnes each. The units are positioned in pairs with two units forward on the ship and two units aft. When not in use they retract to be flush with the hull and when the vessel approaches the berth they are activated from the bridge wing extending out through hull doors to attach to a steel plate on the berth.

Externally mounted The externally mounted unit is designed to be retrofitted to

existing ships. The unit is stowed at deck level (when not in use). Activated by the master the units travel down the hull of the ship and couple with a plate mounted on the shore.

Recessed

The recessed system is designed to meet the needs of smaller craft such as barges and it permits them to automatically secure to larger vessels for transshipment operations.

It will be noted that all these vacuum systems can only attach to a flat metal surface. This obviously limits the vessel to specific berths where the shore pads can be precisely aligned with the vessel’s optimum mooring position. In the latter recessed system the barge can only use the system for mooring on the parallel flat side of a vessel which probably restricts its use on bunker barges and stores vessels which usually end up under the counter somewhere. I have never come across any vessels fitted with automatic mooring systems but apart from the flush mounted ferry arrangement I would suspect that being exposed to the elements both the externally mounted and recessed systems would very shortly succumb to contact damage and sea water corrosion. I would also anticipate that the installation and maintenance costs are very high which would impact on the cost benefit analysis.

Shore based system

This seems to be where the future lies because the vacuum pads are located on the jetty and lock onto the ship’s side. The only on board equipment required is the telemetry control system on the bridge wings which enable the master or pilot to

activate / de-activate the pads for remote mooring / unmooring operation. In March 2004, Mooring Systems Limited entered into an alliance with the Cavotec Group granting them the licence for the manufacture, marketing and service of their products. The mooring systems are now named “Moor Master” and can be tailored to suit various berth / vessel configurations with the advantage of compact storage when not in use. This also enables the system to rest behind the maximum fender impact line during berthing. When activated, the vacuum pad support frame is extended outwards and the vacuum mooring connection is established in around 10 seconds. Unmooring takes around 2 seconds.

How does it work?

Good question so here is the blurb from the brochure:

Instead of a rope, the products use vacuum pads to provide the mooring attachment. Each pad has a measurable working load, providing a powerful physical attachment between ship and shore. MSL’s vacuum pads have been tested and rated under the supervision of the international classification societies Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Lloyds Register. When combined with the innovative, three dimensional supporting apparatus, the mooring units emulate the range of movement, resilience and elasticity of a line mooring. Today, MSL’s standard vacuum pads can cope with extensive surface irregularities and are able to slide under extreme loads without significant seal deformation or loss of attachment. Because the mooring units attach to the ship closer to the waterline and immediately counteract mooring forces, the system has a greater mooring efficiency than angled ropes. By using sophisticated internet based control software the system permits the user to monitor performance clearly communicating all essential mooring load information in real-time. Full control mechanisms and proper load measurement combined with robust communication systems are required to avoid unacceptable risks with the vacuum couple and the overall integrity of the mooring. Mooring load information is produced from the measurement of vacuum efficiencies and from monitoring athwartships and fore and aft hydraulic cylinders.

With a full knowledge of the mooring conditions at all times, the operator has complete control and understanding of the moored state of the vessel. MSL is currently the only company in the world to have successfully designed, implemented and proven ship vacuum mooring in a commercial environment. In this process they have discovered key elements of intellectual property relating to their designs and processes. MSL has protected these features having a number of patents pending internationally.

So, it would appear that the system is very robust with presumably a back up vacuum pump system and power supply in case of malfunction or power failure. The whole operation is totally automatic and once the vessel is alongside the vessel is moored by pressing a green button marked “moor”. Unmooring is achieved by pressing a red button marked “detach”.

What happens whilst the vessel is alongside?

The position of the vessel is monitored constantly and if there is a rise or fall in the tide the vacuum pads are mounted on vertical rails and move up and down with the vessel. If the tide range takes the pad to the extremity of the rail travel then in less than 15 seconds the pad will automatically detach from the hull, reposition

to the mid travel position and lock on again. In order that the vessel doesn’t break adrift the units are programmed not to relocate at the same time. This operation can also be undertaken manually at any time from the on board control panel. When mooring, the position doesn’t have to be exact. If once the pads are locked on it is found necessary to move the vessel this can be done by the pads themselves which can also move horizontally. The master or pilot just programmes in the distance to move ahead or astern and the pads will move the vessel the required distance. Again, if this distance is greater than the rail travel length then the pads will detach in sequence and re-locate automatically. With respect to wind effects the fact that these systems have mainly been fitted to ferries would indicate that they are capable of holding a vessel securely in high winds as claimed.

Why are they not everywhere?

Obviously such units don’t come cheap and as we are all aware berth operators are very reluctant to spend any money at all on even basic essentials such as fendering and in many cases they allow the berth to deteriorate to such an extent that when some unfortunate pilot comes alongside something falls off. The subsequent insurance claim then refurbishes the facility for a few more years! Exaggeration? Possibly but in London it has taken 4 years for a major container berth to fit sufficient bollard to moor a ship traditionally with the headlines/stern lines from two large container vessels sometimes all being placed on the same bollard and a new tanker berth was constructed with no bollards for breast ropes and these are still not present! The other factor here is liability and it is a major issue. Again on the Thames there is a facility which used to provide a shore gangway for a nominal charge. The gangway now sits unused because the berth operator has been advised that if they provide it they are liable for it whilst a vessel is alongside and if anyone is injured or killed whilst using it (the highest cause of maritime injury and death) they could be held liable. With a mooring system the berth operator is responsible for ensuring that it won’t fail whilst a vessel is alongside. The majority of berth operators will therefore baulk at the cost and liability aspects of automatic mooring systems so don’t chuck the long-johns or balaclavas away just yet!!

Other systems

I have discovered another company manufacturing and installing automatic mooring systems and this is a Swedish company called TTS Port Equipment who manufacture the “Automooring” system. This company has been commissioned by the Swedish Port of Trelleborg to provide mooring equipment for a railway berth. The specification demands that the system can handle a transverse load of up to 1,000 kN, for the Scandlines vessels Skåne and Mecklenburg, whilst berthed via a stern ramp. The Automooring system comprises of a framework fixed to the quay, inside which runs a vertically rolling unit activated by hydraulic motor. A mooring hook is connected to the unit and automatically centred within the fixed stand. Rather than a vacuum this system uses a hook and lug arrangement with dedicated equipment along with specialist control and telemetry units ashore and on board to connect the hydraulic shore mooring arms. Again the brochure makes the following claims:

Two hydraulic cylinders supply mooring force and the mooring systems are remotely controlled and therefore don’t require any quay-side personnel. The safety and efficiency of mooring procedures are improved by the system as its performance is monitored and its status is reported to operations staff in realtime. The system will require only one operator and will be remotely controlled with its load monitoring and alarm functions relaying information to operations staff in real-time. The design permits vessels to remain securely moored, even during power cuts or loss of control signals.

As with the Cavotec on board systems this arrangement requires a special slot and groove to be cut into the ships side which as well as being expensive will be vulnerable to contact damage and the elements.

Semi automatic Mooring

With this arrangement the vessel still uses its own mooring ropes but the shore

bollard is located on a hydraulically operated arm which tilts towards the ship

permitting the crew to drop the mooring rope over it. Once the rope is attached the

arm returns to the vertical and the line is tensioned in the usual manner. The bollard can be operated from the shore or from on board but again this system is only

practical for use with the same class of vessel for the bollard to correctly align

with the mooring point on the vessel. TTS also manufacture a vacuum system which looks very similar to the Cavotec equipment but the illustrations don’t seem to show any horizontal movement capability.

Conclusion

Well here we are in 2006 and I am sure that in 1906 few sailors when securing their ship would have thought that 100 years on their contemporary counterparts would be using similar mooring equipment and still turning ropes up on bitts. At least some companies are developing alternatives but the day when every ship can drop alongside a berth and be all fast in 10 seconds still seems a long way off!

Many thanks to Andy Bell MNI for providing the information on the Cavotec mooring systems.

PS I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has

experience of this equipment. TTS hook and lug

TTS semi automatic mooring

Technical & Training 07/06

July 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Technical and Training | No Comments »

Technical & Training

MARNIS (Maritime Navigation & Information Service:

MarNIS (www.marnis.org) is a European funded project in which EMPA is playing a key role in the development of a Port Operational Approach Docking Support System (POADSS). As mentioned in previous issues of The Pilot such a system is based on the lap top or Portable Pilot Unit (PPU) which is currently being used in some Ports. The main objectives of POADSS are to improve the safety and efficiency in ports and approaches, improve fairway usability, exchange of information with VTS and other port users and help to prepare and then execute the dynamic passage plan. EMPA’s contribution is being managed by the Dutch Pilot Company, NLC, and the UK is being represented by the Technical & Training Committee who have co-opted Nigel Allen of Southampton to help out with this time consuming role. Nigel has already attended several meetings. I hope the importance of the MARNIS project can be appreciated when seen alongside the concept of e-navigation and the need to keep control of the navigation on the bridge of the ship. There are a number of these navigational tools being used by colleagues around the Districts and it was interesting to read the MAIB report into the grounding of the Lerrix in the Baltic Sea which was published on the 11^th April 2006. During the investigation it emerged that the master was using a portable GPS connected to a personal laptop running a pirated navigation package as his primary source of navigation. The pirated programme, obtained from the internet in 1999, had not been updated and the alarms were inoperative. The report recommends that Rix Shipping Ltd establish a policy to guard against inappropriate use of personal navaids carried by crew members.

UK SAFETY OF NAVIGATION (UKSON):

The MCA are about to embark on a study into the misuse of AIS so you may find yourself being asked to take part in this study. The Sunk Working Group are coming to the end of their work on the proposed changes to the traffic separation scheme around the Sunk Lightship and the proposed changes are to go before IMO. A new TSS is to go ahead at The Minches in 2007.

PILOT FATIGUE: An issue that is very much to the fore at the present time. There is

now a Pupillometer available on the market to help test for fatigue. The correlation between pupil response and helping diagnose, amongst a number of things,  chemical/substance abuse and human fatigue has been known for some time. An American company from Illinios, MCJ Eyecheck www.mcjeyecheck.com,

have now developed a Pupillometer that resembles a pair of binoculars which measures the contraction and dilation of the pupil when subject to flashes of light.  This method is currently being used by Belgium Pilots to measure fatigue and is also being considered for use by the Swedish Coastguard.

SOLAS: The meeting heard of a situation in which the MCA considered prosecuting a Pilot for sailing a vessel without a working gyro. It is a SOLAS requirement that all ships over 500grt should have a gyro compass, or other means, to determine and display their heading by shipborne nonmagnetic means and to transmit heading information to radar and AIS.

 Gareth Rees

AIS Update

April 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Features, Technical and Training | No Comments »

Automatic Identification System (AIS)

TRANSPONDER UPDATE

It is now just over one year since AIS became mandatory for all SOLAS vessel over 300 grt and although I must admi that my prediction that the system would have difficulty in coping with the amount f traffic in port areas has been largely proven wrong there are increasing cases of ships’ units failing in a variety of functions. These failures are about to gain in significance as a result of the implementation of Class B AIS for non SOLAS vessels and, from 1st July 2008, the requirement for new radars to have AIS integration. It is therefore timely to identify some of the problems that are occurring with the existing systems

View the original pdf illustrated article from the magazine:

pilotmag.co.uk/userfiles/Pilotmag%20285%20(Apr%2006).pdf

I am aware of three cases where total failure has resulted in vessels having to either send

their units away for repair or having to install a replacement set. This has meant that until

the AIS was repaired or replaced the vessels concerned were navigating without AIS and

were thus invisible to AIS tracking systems. With respect to other failures the most

common on-board malfunction is the misalignment between the gyro heading and the AIS

heading which results in the AIS heading either defaulting to North or the AIS heading

being incorrectly aligned. In the latter case this sometimes results from the unit being

switched off in port and if the heading is different when the unit is switched on again it

does not automatically align with the correct heading but defaults to north or retains the

original shut down heading. Unfortunately, such faults are not readily apparent to those

on board and are usually only identified by reports from other vessels or a VTS centre.

Fixing this alignment problem is also not straightforward on many vessels and I have

recently piloted a vessel where it was necessary to contact a service technician to resolve

this error. As experience is gained then these faults should normally be eliminated by

including the AIS gyro heading alignment on the pre sailing check list, but there is now a

new problem with this in that since the only training that most officers have received is

from the installation engineer, when new crews join who are unfamiliar with a particular

AIS unit they may have no idea how to undertake some operational procedures. This may

seem an unlikely scenario, but I was on one vessel recently which was reported as having

misaligned heading data and the gyro alignment interface was a via a small separate unit

with an adjustment dial tucked away underneath the wheelhouse console. Fortunately the

Mate had witnessed the installation, but this is not the sort of detail that would normally be passed on during the usual few hours of a crew change! All this of course does raise the point that surely in the 21^st century, technology should be able to eliminate such tedious and fiddly operations! Another problem which I have observed on some ships’ AIS is he phenomena whereby AIS data either disappears (picture 1) or the data defaults to the basic MMSI number. Because these effects are not universal (other vessels and VTS are tracking the “missing” target without problems) I have been advised that such

target corruption is most likely to be caused by poorly installed equipment. However, and this is a problem that may become serious with the introduction of the Class B AIS, such target loss could also be caused by what is termed as “garbling” of the signal. It is therefore of relevance to be aware as to how garbling may ,ise and the following explanation is from a paper presented to the Royal Institute of Navigation NAV05 Conference by Dr Andy Norris who chairs the Technical Committee of the International

Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) that is responsible for issuing technical standards for ships’ radio and navigation equipment: AIS works on Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) transmissions. The basis of TDMA is that time is divided up into

discrete ‘slots’ and only one station (base-station, ship-station, etc) will be transmitting during a particular time slot. For AIS there are 2,250 slots in every minute on each of the two AIS VHF channels, which are known as AIS 1 and AIS 2. UTC is used as the time

reference. When an AIS Class A station is first switched on it predetermines its transmission slots by ‘listening’ to the existing traffic. This establishes which slots are free, helped by stations already ‘on-air’, which broadcast their future slot selection as part of their transmitted messages. The fact that each station determines its own slots within an organised regime gives this technique the name ‘Self Organising TDMA’ (SOTDMA). In busy areas unused slots become rare and then stations select slots already in use by the most distant stations. These are readily calculated because of the positional data contained within the AIS messages. The organised reuse of slots from distant stations should make AIS degrade “gracefully” as the number of stations in an area increases by making the effective range of AIS decrease to match the increase in station density. The characteristics of the frequency modulated (FM) signal used by AIS helps in ensuring that the strong signals from close stations are properly demodulated in the presence of weaker signals from more distant stations sharing the same slot. This is known as co-channel interference rejection. However, if confronted with signals of similar strength the demodulator becomes confused and ‘garbling” occurs. In fact there are a number of mechanisms that can make signals from distant stations similar in strength or even stronger than some closer stations. For instance, poorly situated AIS antennas can cause ‘masking’ in some directions and enhanced sensitivity in other directions. Also, anomalous propagation of VHF signals during particular climatic conditions can provide a focusing effect, giving even very distant stations unusual prominence. For these reasons the inbuilt features of SOTDMA do not always ensure that closer stations are received in preference to more distant stations.

Practical Useage

With respect to the type of equipment installed, the overwhelming majority of vessels are fitted with the minimum required to comply with carriage regulations! These are small alpha numeric displays which at the absolute basic level have to display at least three targets. I have seen such minimal three line units on ships and for all practical purposes they are totally useless. Other systems cram a list of many targets into the small display (typically 9cm x 12cm) which renders them illegible and again these are totally useless. The more sophisticated units, such as those manufactured by SAAB and SAILOR, are fortunately the ones most commonly fitted but due to the small screen size these also have severe practical limitations in areas where several ships are present, which of course is when it is likely to be of most benefit! These intermediate sets offer a choice of display modes, with either a list of targets being displayed or a by a graphic display similar to a mini radar picture. On the graphic display (picture 2), selecting a target for display is so fiddly that again it is impractical and in my experience around 90% of vessels have the display set to the list mode. Again there are several options for listing but the most useful is

the target list selected by range (picture 3) which displays the MMSI number, the name of the vessel and its range and bearing. By scrolling down the list a target can be selected and extended data on the selected vessel can be obtained (picture 4). The obvious place for sighting such displays is adjacent to the radar where the bearing and rage of a radar target can be correlated with the AIS display and a good example is shown in picture 5. However, on many vessels the AIS is sited wherever there happened to be some space when the set was delivered and this is usually remote from the radar and quite frequently in a corner at the back of the chart table! I have yet to come across any free standing AIS unit that has an integrated anti collision warning fitted should another AIS target enter a pre determined danger zone around the own vessel, although such alarms are usually present where AIS is integrated into the radar display.

Integrated AIS on radar

The integration of AIS onto the radar display is being received with mixed enthusiasm by those on board using such systems and much depends on the quality of the equipment and its installation. Picture 6 shows a high quality display which provided very accurate tracking with good correlation between the radar and AIS vectoring although even this equipment revealed some offset between the radar and AIS targets (picture 7) and on other sets I have observed offsets of up to 5 cables and this is one aspect of integration which may cause a watch keeper to make an erroneous interpretation of a developing situation. Another particularly annoying “feature” of some AIS / radar integration displays is that although the AIS function can be switched off, many such displays that I have come across have had an automatic AIS proximity alarm which triggers if another AIS vessel enters the radar’s anti collision guard zone. One unforeseen result of this supposed safety feature is that even when approaching a vessel at anchor or moored alongside, the AIS “collision” alarm resounds around the wheelhouse! The solution? The guard zone is set to zero and the alarms are set to “mute” thus neatly disabling one of the primary anti collision functions of the radar!!

One other fact is that I have yet to come across any Master or Officer of the Watch (OOW) who has been on an AIS course or received any formal instructions in its use. All knowledge on board has therefore either been gained from a brief introduction from the

installation engineer or from the user manual. I believe (although I hope that I am proven wrong again!) that this lack of formal training is going to be a significant factor in vessel safety as Class B units and AIS radar integration displays are introduced. These two developments are designed to provide “additional information to the OOW to enhance the situational awareness of a developing situation with respect to collision avoidance”. This all sounds admirable but the limitations which have been placed on Class B AIS mean that both SOLAS and non SOLAS vessels may receive incomplete and inaccurate data! The reason for this is in the technical specifications of the Class B equipment and again the following is an edited extract from an article on AIS B implementation written by Dr Norris for the “Digital Ship” online magazine.

AIS B offers leisure and other small vessel users a potentially valuable tool to enhance maritime safety at an affordable price. It has been designed to minimise degradation of the AIS network and will be available in three options.

_ The basic unit is a display-less transmitter for up-mast mounting to alert the vessel’s presence on SOLAS vessels’ AIS in the same manner as a radar reflector does now on radar.

_ Intermediate units have an inbuilt display (similar to the Class A displays) which, as well as broadcasting ownship position, will enable users to see the positions and vessel data of all AIS-fitted vessels in their vicinity on the display.

_ At the top end of the market AIS overlay capability will be added to radars and electronic chart systems, giving sophisticated navigational information to the user, vying with the facilities available on the most comprehensively fitted SOLAS vessel.

With this prospect of eventual high usage in the leisure sector it is worthwhile taking a look at some of the possible issues that may arise with this increased use of AIS.

The Class B transponder transmits at a lower power (2 watts) than Class A (12.5 watts) thus reducing the effective range of Class B transmissions and their effect on the network. Also, position reports are given at a maximum rate of once every 30 seconds, as opposed to Class A systems, which typically transmit once every 10 seconds and up to every 2 seconds. Importantly, Class B systems will give priority to Class A transmissions, delaying their own transmissions if a Class A station is already transmitting. This is the fundamental aspect of the Carrier Sense (CS) mode of operation that is used by Class B. Tests have confirmed that the AIS network is minimally affected even if there are relatively large numbers of Class B vessels in any area.

Collision avoidance

AIS is considered to be a useful aid to improve situational awareness but its use as an anti-collision device is not recognised by the IMO.

The Collision Regulations (COLREGS) are written around the concepts of visibility (sight) of vessels and the proper use of radar and have not yet been revised to incorporate any reference to AIS. However, Rule 5 of the COLREGS (Lookout) does emphasise the use of ‘all available means’ to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. It therefore appears that this rule requires vessels that have AIS fitted to use the system as part of such an appraisal, but not to take collision avoidance decisions based solely on AIS data. What is fundamental is that AIS data should only be used with the full knowledge that data errors are possible and that not all targets may be transmitting data - an AIS system may not be fitted or a fault may have developed.

AIS displays

It is of extreme importance to the Class B user to be aware that there is no statutory requirement for SOLAS vessels to be able to display AIS targets on a screen merely a requirement to provide a simple alphanumeric Minimum Keyboard and Display (MKD). To meet the minimum requirements this display need show no more than three ships at any one time detailing bearing, range and name of ship. Therefore Class B users must understand that their vessel may not be appearing as a ‘bright beacon’ on the displays of the majority of SOLAS vessels. Although IMO requires all new radars fitted after 1 July 2008 to have good AIS display capabilities, existing radars will not have to be upgraded and so it will be many years before AIS data can be effectively used for navigation on many SOLAS vessels.

Unfortunately, an uninformed Class B user with a reasonable AIS display may base their own collision avoidance decisions solely on AIS data thus creating significant problems for SOLAS vessels.

Information overload?

The confusing excess of data when navigating in waters crowded with Class B users will render AIS useless for most Class A users fitted with the MKD. On a radar screen an excessive number of AIS symbols will make the observation of raw radar data more difficult and so the display of AIS targets may need to be inhibited or an AIS target filter enabled. From July 2008 all new navigation displays capable of showing AIS targets will need to meet IMO performance standards which require that AIS filters must be included ‘in order to ensure that the clarity of the total presentation is not substantially impaired’. Increasingly sophisticated AIS filters may have to be developed but unfortunately it is difficult to make filters sufficiently adaptable to be effective whilst not obscuring possibly dangerous targets.

This article has highlighted some very relevant points and both the AIS B and radar AIS integration have the potential to create a dangerously confusing picture to the hapless navigator, especially in reduced visibility. I have previously identified a major problem

with AIS integration on radar and the addition of Class B AIS into the already crowded display has the potential to create a nightmare scenario. In view of the fact that data update transmissions AIS B vessels are going to be at least 30 seconds apart and in busy areas may not update at all means that the information will be historic and therefore totally unreliable and this, coupled with an automatic collision alarm function has the

potential to create so much information overload as to render the display unusable (picture . Dr Norris’ article refers to filtering but correctly identifies the problem of actual dangerous targets then being missed. Couple this with the fact that leisure users are

going to assume that they are being accurately plotted and carefully tracked by the professional navigators of the “bridge team” I don’t believe that the word nightmare is at all inappropriate! As if these factors are not sufficiently worrying there is a also move by IALA, buoyed by an enthusiasm for e-navigation by the shipping Minister and DfT, to introduced AIS based “virtual” navigation marks to replace the traditional physical marks! Considering that the original full implementation date for AIS by IMO was December 2008, which was accelerated by four years following pressure from the USA’s security agenda, I personally feel that the AIS has been implemented without a

proper assessment of the practical useage through structured operator feedback and to now release the system into the leisure market is sheer folly, not least because it is sure to tempt some leisure sailors to proceed in restricted visibility when they would normally remain in the marina. Just in case you may have any lingering doubts that I am exaggerating, there is already a British company called NASA Marine manufacturing an AIS receiver (note no transmitter included!) unit for the leisure market called “AIS radar”! The product description is as follows:

The Nasa Marine AIS radar is the first stand alone AIS receiver / plotter specifically designed for the leisure boat market. The display, with ranges of 1, 2, 4, 8,16 and 32 nautical miles shows AIS carrying vessels in a format normally associated with conventional radar. A trail of previous positions clearly chows the relative track of all the targets on the screen. A box to the right of the screen displays the speed over the ground, the vessel name, mmsi number and the latidude (sic) and longitude of any target selected by the user.

The Future?

The best installations that I have seen are where there is an Electronic Navigation Chart (ENC) display adjacent to the radar. The ENC automatically displays all AIS targets and is integrated with the radar so that any radar targets being plotted are also displayed on the chart. In this way the watch keeper can concentrate on using the radar equipment for which he should have been fully trained but can also refer to the ENC for an overview of the vesselís position and can monitor and obtain extended AIS information from this secondary system without interfering with the familiar radar detail which he has been trained to use. Unfortunately there are two major problems with this arrangement. Firstly there is no requirement to carry an ENC and secondly, in contrast to the still rare officially licensed Electronic Chart display and Information System (ECDIS) which can replace the paper chart folio, the vast majority of ENC’s currently in use do not meet the stringent specifications of an ECDIS for accuracy and corrections and come with the warning “Not to be used for navigation”! It is for this reason that radar has been chosen as the AIS screen display platform but I believe that with all the different radars incorporating the manufacturers (usually incorrect) ideas as to how information is accessed and presented to the user dangerous confusion will be the inevitable result of the rush to embrace AIS. However, I have been proven wrong so far so I am sure that I will be proven wrong again. I hope so!

JCB

My thanks to Dr. Andy Norris for his kind permission to use the texts included with this article.

Feedback Required

Feedback on experiences with all aspects of AIS are urgently required and reports should be sent to the dedicated “forum” link on the Nautical Institute website at: www.nautinst.org/ais/ Pilots are ideally placed to provide valuable input through their experiences on a wide range of ships in varying environments. All information received is passed on to the relevant experts who will use it to identify and resolve operational problems, so please participate. Serious errors should also be reported to the MCA on the form attached to MIN 231. Other MCA advice on AIS is contained within MGN 277 and MSN 1975.

Letter : Self Employment

April 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Letters, Technical and Training | No Comments »

LETTER

As a pilot who is now approaching his 40^th year in the profession (May 24^th this year) and who will retire at the end of the year I feel it incumbent upon me to express my own personal feelings for the future of our profession. It has long been my belief that self-employment is the ONLY way ahead for pilotage in the UK, this belief being strengthened by my experience of having been employed twice during my time as a pilot with the majority of my career spent as self-employed. My first spell of employment was for a period of 2 years whilst on secondment from my home port Liverpool to ALCOA in Port Kamsar, Republic of Guinea in West Africa and the second period was back home in Liverpool following the 1987 Pilotage Act as an employee of the Mersey Docks & Harbour Company. This lasted for a period of 9 years whence we finally negotiated a return to our previous self-employed status.

I can say with my hand on my heart that the 9 years I spent in employment were the unhappiest in my career and which resulted in our Pilot Service reaching a position of rock bottom both in our remuneration and status as professionals. Happily I can report that since our return to self-employment in 1997 our status, remuneration and most of all our relationship with the Harbour Authority and its customers has improved beyond all recognition. I can equally say that the last 9 years in self-employment have been the happiest I have ever spent as a pilot and I believe that this feeling is largely shared by my fellow Liverpool Pilots. Comparisons between ourselves and shore-based personnel are now a thing of the distant past and rightly so. A Pilot is by definition “An independent professional person” who, whilst he is on board a ship, is the servant of the ship-owner (not the ships master as I have seen quoted) and is given the conduct of that vessel by the master. Lord Jauncey in his Judgement in the Cavendish Report following an incident involving a PLA pilot created case law when he stated that the 1987 Pilotage Act did not alter the status of a pilot as an independent professional person whether he be in the employ of the CHA or not.

It is my own personal belief that the 1987 Pilotage Act has seriously undermined the position of pilots in the UK and since the simultaneous dismissal of 136 highly experienced pilots on the number in January 2002 the number of employed pilots in the UK is now well in excess of those that are self-employed. The present government’s policy still remains that they would like to see all UK pilots in the employment of their respective CHAs apparently on the grounds that “they would be more accountable”. My own experience has shown that self employed pilots are no less accountable than their employed counterparts and if anything seem to enjoy a higher level of respect from their own authorities.

In closing I would like to say that those who know me are aware of how passionately I feel about self-employment and I hope that this letter goes some way to explaining why I have vehemently opposed those civil servants who have attempted to implement present government policy and reverse what we have achieved in Liverpool. Their policies are the exact opposite of what I feel should be happening. As a member of the Section Committee of the UKMPA I would like to make it dear that the views I have expressed are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of other members of the committee or of my fellow Liverpool Pilots.

Dave Devey, Liverpool Pilot

PEC Steering Group Meeting

April 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Technical and Training | No Comments »

PEC Steering Group Meeting

This was the first meeting of this group which followed directly on from the morning PMSCWG meeting. With the valuable assistance of Avald Wymark the UKMPA had made an extremely comprehensive submission concerning the remit of this committee to the MCA and were therefore disappointed that the terms of reference tabled for the meeting was as follows:

_ To consider issues relating to PEC’s in order to aid ports in the discharge of their

statutory responsibilities.

_ To consider MAIB report recommendations relating to PEC issues

_ To report to the PMSCWG any recommendations for endorsement or further action

However Don reports that the MCA did acknowledge the receipt of the UKMPA submission and also confirmed that this had been the only submission received on the issue. The following is an edited extract from Don’s report to the Section Committee:

British Ports’ Association (BPA) questioned the need for any review of PEC at all stating

that they were not aware of any problems. The UK Major Ports Group (UKMPG) did

likewise. There then ensued a debate, basically with UKMPA, UKHMA, DfT and

MCA on one side and UKMPG, BPA and Chamber of Shipping on the other although

one of the UKMPG representatives was supportive of a need to review the status quo. The debate and discussions were complex and involved but the UKMPA held a very strong position and argued the need for review supported by the MCA referring to MAIB recommendations. The MCA called on BPA and UKMPG to carry out a fact finding exercise amongst their members on their respective PEC systems and it was therefore with great delight that we were able to announce that the UKMPA had already done that – thanks to Avald’s questionnaire – and that we would subsequently submit the respective port details to MCA. We also pointed out that we had previously supplied a significant number of Ports’ PEC procedures about 12 months ago. This too was acknowledged by MCA. The MCA requested that they wanted to be in receipt of the data before next PMSC SG meeting on 8^th June. The MCA have started to draw up a spreadsheet of differing standards in port PEC systems and whilst incomplete, they have already come to the conclusion that there are unacceptable inconsistencies in the standards. The UKMPG and BPA argued that ports should be allowed to determine respective requirements against their Risk assessments. I argued the point that if their Risk Assessments already required compulsory pilotage then it was obvious that a PEC holder had to have the same level of expertise for that ship and intended passage through the port as the pilot he replaced.

EMPA Report

April 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Technical and Training | No Comments »

EMPA REPORT

UKMPA representatives Paul Haysom (Gt Yarmouth), John Pearn (Milford Haven)

and Chris Hughes (Europilots) attended the 40^th General Meeting in Antwerp on the

5^th & 6^th April. The following is a précis of their report

President: Juha Tulimaa (Finland) has been elected EMPA president

Secretary General’s Report:

Chris Lefevere (Belgium)

At the EMPA meeting on 21/12/05 it was decided to meet on a regular basis to determine a common position on EU maritime policy. EMPA is now a member of the EU Maritime Board.

EMPA has a new office, shared with the Belgian Pilots.

Enquiries about membership have been received from Cyprus, Monaco and Ukraine.

New Challenges - The new EU Maritime Policy appears to bring closer the criminalisation of seamen and pilots; a German pilot was recently questioned by police following a collision with a trawler that crossed his bow. The EU Commission is redrafting its Directive in line with Parliaments requests. Pilots are at present excluded. The new EU Maritime Policy would appear to promote a maritime cluster approach in response to the rise of Federation (ETF) is representing dockworkers; and consideration needs to be given to EMPA seeking stakeholder status to represent our interests. EMPA needs to improve the image of pilotage to offset criminalisation/competition and improve status. A forum needs to be developed to exchange information on local disputes and to share experiences.

EMPA Journal: The new editor Roger Allaert seeks more articles in an attempt to make the journal more interesting.

Website: www.empa-pilots.org is being updated with a new layout.

The new EU Maritime Policy was discussed

and the aim of EMPA to become a proactive organisation is being achieved.

Deep Sea Pilots: The “Erika 3” package calls on pilots to aid better targeting through the reporting of defects. Deep sea pilots are concerned that any vessels reported will be less likely to use their services again. The setting up of a PSSA in the Baltic and West Europe may lead to calls for compulsory pilotage for certain vessels.

Health of Maritime Pilots

A study has been undertaken in Belgium regarding occupational accidents in maritime pilots.

EMPA Technical and Training Committee

Mobile Phones EMPA recommend

phones. A report in Norway has said the use of mobile phones on ships is hazardous.  Embarkation: Difficulty in boarding warships was discussed.

Recent Accidents: There were 2 fatalities in the US, Columbia River and Hawaii.  Also recently 3 helicopter accidents have resulted in 2 fatalities.

Fatigue: The cause of most accidents is human error with fatigue frequently being sighted. Belgian pilots have purchased a machine that measures fatigue through non-invasive eye scanning.

Quality Assessment of Pilots

The last assessment was 1995 by the EU and since there is now a White Paper review being undertaken it is felt that there is a need to improve the image of pilots.  The objective is to measure pilot performance as seen by ship’s masters who will be asked to complete a 5 minute questionnaire which will be presented in all pilot districts across the EU over a 14/30-day period.

Marnis: User requirements have been defined; other partners will now develop the technical specifications. A prototype portable laptop unit should be available in 2007.

Please note the new EMPA address:

EMPA, VZW Italiëlei ,74 B-2000 Antwerp Belgium.