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