I write a monthly column for BIMCO on similar subjects to those covered here. Every now and again I throw all the toys out of my pram and usually encounter a polite refusal to publish. I honestly thought the same thing would happen here but I’m pleased to say BIMCO came through and published the piece.

It’s a serious issue, caught in the crossbeams of some poor regulation, some over-zealous enforcement, tardy preparation and the shipping industry’s persistent obsession with looking the other way. No it’s more than that – it’s like Douglas Adams describes one of my favourite aliens in H2G2: “it believes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you”.

Anyway read on, ‘cos this train is pulling into the station on slightly iffy brakes…

Tough love and straight talk on ECDIS

By Neville Smith

I was as interested as anyone to read last week’s Watchkeeper “Taking ECDIS very seriously” noting real-life incidents reported by pilots where the shipboard Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) failed to perform correctly. In fact I was probably more interested than most, having just attended a series of Admiralty workshops on this subject at the biennial Sea-Japan event.

Having received assurances from Watchkeeper that he would not mind my penning a semi-riposte, there are observations to share on the ECDIS mandate process that I think need reinforcing, over and beyond the problems that he points out.

Beginning with the current issue of ECDIS anomalies, while it is clear that this is a serious issue, it is also true that no mariner on any ship should be unaware of them by now, nor that they lack the means to take corrective action.

A briefing from one ECDIS maker stressed the point that when the anomalies were first identified, it had a solution available within months. This is not a software “patch” but an upgrade that served to rectify the problem. The first anomalies were actually identified in 2010, which makes the recent fuss seem a little tardy on behalf of some owners, their flag states and their class societies too. As further issues have come to light these too have been resolved, with new software freely available for download.

While one or two ECDIS manufacturers have been singled out as offenders, there is reason to think that more than one maker shares the issue, which suggests a need for more transparency on this issue is overdue.

Conversations at Sea-Japan appeared to confirm that while many ships are fitted with ECDIS, paper charts remain the choice for primary navigation. This is perfectly legal (and will be after the SOLAS amendments come into force, incidentally) but any computer software that is not kept up to date can hardly be said to be fit for purpose.

It should hardly need saying that owners must keep charts up to date for legal ECDIS-based navigation but in addition free data services are available to ensure that the latest temporary and preliminary notices can be overlaid on ENCs.

The suggestion that some owners may be using pirated software on their ECDIS is simply beyond belief. Would they wittingly buy counterfeit spare parts with the same abandon? Some might perhaps, but ECDIS is too important to let any risk develop that the system is not performing to the required standard.

Neither should ECDIS need a period of bedding in, since it has been available since the mid-1990s. Yes, there is confusion between the unofficial version, ECS and official ECDIS, but there has been plenty of time for the industry to prepare for the change.

Comparisons heard elsewhere to the introduction of AIS, GMDSS and LRIT are spurious. The industry has had a long enough lead time to think about how ECDIS will affect its operations. Some far-sighted owners have used the time to re-shape their procedures and operations to take advantage of efficiencies it can deliver. Others have stuck their heads in the sand.

The level of feedback from earlier Admiralty seminars has been almost jaw-dropping in the basic nature of questions asked and concerns raised. To judge from these, one would not think the first mandatory carriage deadline was just months away.

Of course, for the majority of the existing fleet the deadline is some years away and the current earnings environment hardly encourages the kind of investment in time and money that ECDIS demands. But owners have to understand that moving to digital navigation is not the same as upgrading the Inmarsat. It requires a change of mind-set that many appear to baulk at, because they think it removes or replaces traditional navigation skills and increases risk.

That is a little like saying that this article would have been better written on a typewriter than a PC. Yes, loss of GPS is a risk but ECDIS still functions in DR mode if GPS signal is lost. Yes, navigation must be backed up by manual procedures, but the regulations only require navigators to use ECDIS, not be experts in the computer code that powers it.

Owners also need to understand that ECDIS operations must form part of the company’s safety management system, so the change of mind-set includes both ship and shore and means superintendents, many of whom are engineers, must think like deck officers.

The fact that training is such a big issue now is clearly a result of putting off to next year what should have been started or even completed by now. Hardly a week passes without one dire warning or another on the number of officers who need to be trained by the deadline and yes, the numbers are daunting.

There remain some dubious training institutions whose idea of education is rubber-stamping a certificate as a reward for attending a generic ECDIS training course. Increasingly though, training is improving as centres recognise the fact that attendance means nothing when the PSC inspector asks a navigator to demonstrate their competence.

Neither is computer-based training the panacea that many would like us to believe, since it often takes longer to complete and is less effective, than that which happens in a classroom.

There also needs to be recognition of the fact that when “ECDIS-assisted groundings” have occurred, the resulting investigation rarely, if ever, concludes that the equipment was actually malfunctioning – or that the crew were completely competent and adequately trained. Normally a combination of incorrect configuration and insufficient training are the cause.

If this sounds like an attack on ship owner reticence to engage then that is partially true. More than that, it is a reflection of the fact that owners have failed to grasp the magnitude of the change at hand. But they are not alone. The type approval process is in need of an upgrade, flag and port states need to understand the subject better and it would be a huge help if all equipment manufacturers interpreted the performance standard in the same way, rather than insist on making all system interfaces different.

But even so, the world turns and we will find out within months how prepared or otherwise the industry is for the change of rules. The news – also reported previously by Watchkeeper – that AMSA is treating 1 July 2012 as the effective date for mandatory carriage on all ships, will give us a clearer picture of how prepared or otherwise the industry really is for a change on this scale.

https://www.bimco.org/en/News/2012/04/25_Feature_Week_17.aspx