Owners stress the practical challenges of moving to ecdis

Making the carriage of ecdis compulsory initiates a change in the way that ships are navigated, one which is as significant as the introduction of radar or the switch from sextants to satellites. On the recommendation of IMO’s Safety of Navigation subcommittee, the Maritime Safety Committee took this momentous decision in June this year, and adopted amendments to Solas regulation V/19 have an expected entry into force date of 1 January 2011. The requirements will be mandatory for new ships and phased-in for existing ships.

With a deadline now in place, participants in the third International Ecdis Conference (pictured), held in Singapore during October, were able to focus on transition and implementation issues. The event was once again organised by the Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO).

The gap between the ecdis performance standard and ecdis in day-to-day operation was discussed by Captain Douglas Bell of the Bahamas Maritime Authority. Lack of standardisation is the contributory cause of groundings and collisions but the solution, he maintained, is not more training. Instead, an operational standard would define common views and display standards, and make life easier for the end user.

While not specifically mentioning the Nautical Institute’s proposed standard mode (‘S-mode’), he argued that a ‘restore defaults’ switch seems a logical solution. He blamed the lack of it on there being too many items on the IMO work programme and not enough thought being given to the implications of ecdis.

As a result, he said, something unique was happening. In his own words: “Normally aids and improvements are brought on board as a supplement to existing techniques and methods. Ecdis is unique in seeking to replace ultimately something that is not actually broken.”

The Norwegian Hydrographer, Gerry Larsen-Fedde, called for a re-think in licensing practices as a means of drawing down the cost of electronic navigation chart (ENC) purchase and operation. He stressed that hydrographic offices (HOs) should be competing on service and quality, not on content. In his view, “A competitive arena is needed but we still have to ensure safety benefits.”

Mindful of the controversy caused by the ENC track offering from Datema, he suggested that the HOs needed to work together on establishing ‘common terms and usage’ for end users and service providers. For the Norwegian HO, he said “we do not want to be in that market, that is not where a hydrographic office belongs.” As for the Datema issue, he commented, Primar believed that charts should be free of charge for planning use only – but that is unlikely to be the last word on the subject.

The advantages of ecdis are well understood – as are the risks. Stanley Siaw of the container shipping line, APL, listed dozens of good reasons for navigating on ENCs, drawn from his company’s own experience, even though APL uses it for situational awareness rather than primary navigation.

Among the risks that APL had identified was that navigators were not always IT-knowledgable but still needed exposure to the technology. Even then, he said there was a risk that navigation could be “an exercise controlled by those with a flair for IT, rather than navigation”.

So why had his company not made the jump to paperless navigation? Simple: with a 2016 deadline for cargo ships and the container market feeling the worst of the downturn, APL was happy to take a step by step approach.

With strong demand likely in the run-up to mandation, it could be that many of the companies selling systems now might see their market shrink in future – some will consolidate, some might disappear. So how can one guard against that risk?

Stolt-Nielsen’s Sean Crowley said this was an issue that his company had considered, and had invested in blueprints and build definitions of its systems, just in case. With 33 ships on dual ecdis, 13 with single ecdis and five newbuildings with triple ecdis, Stolt-Nielsen is fully invested in the future of navigation.

Furthermore, Stolt’s implementation of ecdis is fed by more than one position input, with dual receivers capable of receiving GPS and Glonass. The company would look at Galileo too, should that ever see the light of day. Were radar overlays a good idea? In Mr Crowley’s view, these remain more a ‘nice to have’ than a ‘must have’, but as with all things, the decision to embrace the technology would be made based on the feedback of sea staff.

There is a school of thought that says the mandation of ecdis may allow a reduction in crew numbers through automation. Not so, according to Captain Dave Elliot of Arklow Marine – in fact, quite the opposite: “Before we switched to ecdis we were sailing with just a master and mate on a six man crew but the workload was increasing. When we went to ecdis we added a second officer.”

With the ILO Maritime Labour Convention on the horizon, he said he would not be surprised to see crew numbers up across the board. It was a point reinforced by Sriram Rajagopal, QHSE superintendent for Anglo-Eastern Shipmanagement. With crew numbers already at low levels and workload increasing, ecdis would find its place as a tool to reduce the load on the mariners – particularly stress levels – when navigating at high speed or in congested waters.

The Nautical Institute’s projects director, David Patraiko, told delegates they could not be complacent about basic navigation standards on board ship: “There is a lack of good procedures out there, better watch-keeping standards are needed.” While this leaves open the possibility that ecdis is taking the blame for a general lowering of navigation standards in the crewing crunch, his main thrust was that mariners were in a state of deep confusion over what ecdis is and is not.

Mr Patraiko said his ship visits had witnessed “a PC running free data with a GPS plugged in” but to set that alongside the failure of procedures in a recent casualty, which cost the owner US$10 million and jail time for the pilot, is far too great a risk to run.
Petter Brandt from Stolt-Nielsen said his company’s dissatisfaction with generic training meant that the tanker owner put more emphasis on type specific training with computer-based training and refreshers to follow-up. Mr Patraiko was not the first or last to say that many a student had more direct experience of ecdis on board ship than the person training them.

Dave Elliot of Arklow remarked that PSC inspectors visiting his ships still had no idea what the ecdis was. Christian Fellinger of Caris, a firm providing specialist chart creation tools to HOs, elaborated on this point, stating that not enough chart producers had shipboard experience to appreciate how their charts would work on a busy bridge.

The debate continued but in some ways the argument was becoming circular – training standards and methods need to be right so that the next generation of paperless bridges secures the best information delivered with the latest techniques. There are a clutch of high quality training facilities out there but work is needed on approach, quality and validation, work that will require an approach as integrated as ecdis itself.

Rob Grool of shipmanager Wallem described ecdis mandation as an ‘unspecified’ system, which reminded him of GMDSS but not in a good way. He highlighted the usual suspects: poor satellite position inputs, incorrect chart data, insufficient training and pure bad practice.

Expressing incredulity at the serious of collisions with Tricolor in the English Channel after the wreck had been marked – a good example of where mandatory ecdis cold have helped the situation – he gave examples of incidents on Wallem ships from which he had learned. Those included performing a re-survey at the company’s own expense, in one instance, to satisfy himself that the right thing had been done.

There was comment of a more low key but nonetheless forceful kind from Nick Lemon of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority during the morning. Mr Lemon seemed a believer – even a firm advocate – of IMO’s e-navigation strategy and said the hydrographic community had much value and leadership to contribute to its work.

“Hydrographic offices – as well as IHO and IALA – can give guidance and leadership to IMO on this issue but that has been lacking, and the process has been the poorer for it. At times, it is been like trying to nail jelly to a tree.”

This was in large part because the human factor is in danger of being overlooked in the rush towards new technology; nevertheless, he said that what really concerned him was the lack of defined back-up for satellite position input.

“E-Loran is expensive and only covers half the world. For e-navigation to proceed, this issue is going to need closer attention. The regulators and the generators can co-exist but they need to share a vision about ENCs and ecdis – we need to maintain the service, not just the equipment.”

IMO’s Hartmut Hesse also raised the issue of ecdis’ total reliance on GPS for position input. A failure he said, could bring ecdis “to its knees”, something that must be addressed “seriously and very soon”, as would the question of ship-to-shore infrastructure.

Given repeated warnings about the need for robust back-up from bodies such as the Royal Institute of Navigation, it would be more than ironic if all the work to progress the industry to where it is were voided if GPS degrades or is jammed.

One of the comments heard more than once in the lobbies was that e-navigation, ecdis and ENCs were all very well but surely all this ship-shore communication would play havoc with the satellite communications bill.

A delegate wanted to know if the equipment was good enough to make the process efficient. “It is chicken and egg,” replied Wallem’s Rob Grool. “If you start having a big demand for something then there is more usage and the cost comes down.”

The problem he thought – and where the bills might spike – was that shoreside staff treated everything as urgent for commercial reasons, which led to overload and ultimately the undermining of what was trying to be achieved.

The Nautical Institute’s David Patraiko, in his second slot at the conference, predicted that, along with the issues already identified as threats and opportunities, if ecdis systems and software did not improve the industry could see a terrible third way emerge post-2012.

After whatever deadline was reached for their ship types, he believes, mariners would have an ecdis and probably paper on board too but for day-to day-navigation, they might actually continue to work on unofficial electronic chart systems – maybe even the laptop and GPS combination.

Though this might be more about familiarity than malicious intent, it would still be illegal, and presumably the ecdis would be switched on when Port State Control approached. He said, “The temptation to use your own device would be very strong. We are going to have to be very clear in messages about who can use what, where and when.”

The theme of the UKHO’s chief executive, Mike Robinson, was that technologies converge and standardisation emerges but that for the mariner, there needs to be a move away from what he called “protective navigation” towards “pro-active navigation”.

With the base layer of ENC coverage in a strong position, it was time to think about value add-ons. The answer, he suggested, was voyage optimisation and decision support – a combination of chart management with planning tools that could make a tangible difference to fuel bills.

The UKHO’s e-Navigator system is under test in the Atlantic – with a second testbed vessel to come – but he said the first ship was already achieving noticeable fuel and efficiency savings. None of this would happen tomorrow. “E-navigation is going to take some time to get going. We have been working on ENCs for a long time, now we have to bring the data to life, and that is not going to happen overnight.”

His forward-looking stance did not stop some older concerns being raised from the audience. Could he, hand on heart, promise 100 per cent coverage with ENCs? No, he could not. Why were ENCs still so expensive? Prices were coming down and would continue to fall as licensing flexibility increased. When would paper disappear? Not for 10-15 years at least, since it was likely that many owners would choose single ecdis with paper back-up.

He even spoke with regards to Gerry Larsen-Fedde’s suggestion that licensing would need a re-think. “No, it is not a perfect system – it is still too complex – but real steps are being taken towards greater standardisation to deliver the service to end users.”