ECDIS and safety Dr. Phillip Belcher INTERTANKO Navigation, Safety, Ports and Terminal Subcommittee - work agenda - ECDIS nautical safety issues Dr. Phillip Belcher Monday 6 June 2016 ENOC Seminar

Structure INTERTANKO ECDIS issues Cyber Risk Management Moving forward

INTERTANKO Members Lead the continuous improvement of the tanker industry’s performance      Strive to achieve the goals of: ZERO fatalities ZERO pollution ZERO detentions Deliver the highest quality services to meet their stakeholders’ expectations Promote the availability and use of personnel with the best marine skills and competencies 

Members working for Members

Accident rates

99.9998% of oil transported safely Accidental oil pollution from tankers 000 ts spilt bn tonne miles 99.9998% of oil transported safely Source: ITOPF/Fearnleys/ Lloyd’s List Intelligence *2010s = projection based on 6 years

Tanker incidents (all types and sizes) Number incidents 1,000t oil spilt MARPOL 78 OPA 90 Single Hull phase out Place of Refuge

Stubborn Human Element We still have accidents and incidents Collisions Groundings E-Navigation aims to assist When things go wrong: focus on People Safety culture

Human element Humans make mistakes ECDIS units allow mistakes to occur E-Navigation will add to the complexity More information must not mean more complex solutions Require simpler systems to operate, with the added information

Human element continued High Workload situations Ability to assist the navigator more actively in situations when the workload is high. Navigation assistance – fuzzy logic, decision assistance Alarms.... Do they warn us when we actually need them? Fatigue and Complacency A number of accidents has been due to the low workload and complacency Need the ability to make a navigator to take more active participation

Route to complacency Professional skill They can handle any outcome It never goes wrong Absence of consequences Blind to risk Stopped people from thinking Technology provides a veneer of security

Combating complacency Seafarer buy in Encourage feedback Avoidance of routine Increase surveillance Correct poor performance Wean officers off reliance on technology

ECDIS issues

Safety contour considerations The lack of flexibility with the safety contour in ECDIS is a problem. Safety contour dictated by the safety depth settings and always defaults 10 metres 5 metres 5.6 m Safety depth settings The safety contour is a crucial feature of the ECDIS, we have seen that for many seafarers appropriate safety contour settings are considered a “nice to have” and not a “must have”. Many ECDIS users leave their safety contour set at the factory default of 30 metres and never change it, this causes many alarms, indeed many spurious alarms are caused by improper setting of the safety contour. Another major bug bear of a lot seafarers is the lack of flexibility associated with the safety contour. Since the safety contour is dictated by the safety depth settings and always defaults “up”, i.e. if you set a safety depth of 5.6 metres the safety contour would automatically select the next available contour which would be 10 metres. This is what you can see on the left of this slide, the actual 5.6m contour is depicted in red. ACTION In the right hand image you can see the image as it would appear with a ten metre safety contour ACTION Here is where the 5.6 metre contour should be, you can see that there is significant sea room between the 5.6 metre contour and the 10 metre contour ACTION as demonstrated by this red sector, you can also see that the track in black would now be crossing the safety contour and all because of the rigid set up of the contour system. It is also our experience that there does not appear to be the understanding of just how critical the safety contour settings are for the overall use of ECDIS. We have seen plenty of incidents were the safety contour was not properly set up. This comes back to the issue of context in training, are the cadets and officers attending IMO 1.27 ECDIS courses being taught how critical the safety contour actually is………….lets look at an example of what we are talking about.

Safety Depth and Safety contour related changes Although the upcoming S-52 Ed 6.1.1 (PL 4.0.1) will provide significant improvement, there are still flaws. Example: It is ONLY a safety contour setting that is taken into consideration for all grounding alerts. Spot soundings are NOT used in S-52 Ed 6.1.1 (PL 4.0.1) for any alerts unless they are shallower than the surrounding depth area (e.g. 8,5 m in depth area from 10 to 20m), as set out in the lower right image

CATegories of Zone Of Confidence (CATZOC) All US ENC charts have the lowest category i.e. “U” = unassessed Some companies have implemented an increased the safety margin with set safety margins. If we would do that or even increase the UKC marginally it would drastically decrease cargo intake capabilities in US ports. ENC experts agree that approved ENC’s by HO’s have much higher accuracy than any paper/raster chart ever had. INTERTANKO is developing a generic Risk Assessment for when a ship calls a port with CATZOC “U”. Below: The depth accuracy of the different CATZOC in ENC’s.

Manual fixing on ECDIS All ECDIS must be able to: - Plot manually obtained bearing and distance lines - Calculate the resulting position of own ship - Use position as origin for dead reckoning These standards are vague - How long should it take to plot a fix? - How many actions by user? Crucial for cross checking GNSS or if GNSS fails Officers struggle with using this function due to complexity Despite what many believe about ECDIS it is possible and indeed desirable to plot manual fixes on ECDIS from time to time. An officer using ECDIS needs to plot the ships position because it is necessary to confirm the positional information from the GNSS. It is also necessary for crew to know how to plot a position on ECDIS in case there is a total failure of GNSS. ECDIS performance standards do state that ECDIS should be able to plot an LOP derived from an external source, bearing or range and generate a DR position from that information. In our experience mariners rarely use or practice this function and this could be due to the complexity of the manual fixing systems on some ECDIS’s or because of a lack of training. The performance standards lack detail on how long it should take to plot the fix and how many actions the user will have to undertake to do so. Some manufacturers have created fixing systems which require a lot of complex actions to be undertaken and are a lot slower than fixing on a paper chart. This we believe goes a long way to explain why crew doesn’t often use this function, it would be good to see performance standards which are more specific on details to ensure that the fixing functions are quicker and easier than a paper chart Coincidentally there was an article in the February edition of the Nautical Institute’s Seaways magazine written by a chief officer who questioned whether ECDIS was ready for the seafarer. In his article he describes how plotting an anchorage position given to them by Port Control took 15minutes. Something that would have taken 15sec on a paper chart. By the time they had finally plotted the position on the ECDIS they had nearly past it! I accept that practise plays a role, but still…

Software maintenance “ECDIS that is not updated for the latest version of IHO Standards may not meet the chart carriage requirements as set out in SOLAS regulation V/19.2.1.4.” 31 July 2017 existing ECDIS must be compliant with new IHO standards and be aligned with publication of IEC 61174 - S-52 Specifications for chart content and display aspects of ECDIS - S-63 IHO Data Protection Scheme - S-64 IHO Test Data Sets for ECDIS 3. How many mariners are aware of this dead line and its implications Many mariners are not familiar with the following: “ECDIS that is not updated for the latest version of IHO Standards may not meet the chart carriage requirements as set out in SOLAS regulation V/19.2.1.4.” For a lot of mariners, the idea of needing to update the software of a piece of navigational equipment is an alien one, since they don’t do so for other pieces of equipment such as radar or GMDSS. It is crucial that the software is updated to ensure that the ECDIS satisfies SOLAS carriage requirements. Is this point given much emphasis during ECDIS courses? It would be very interesting exercise to see how many mariners know about the recent changes in software and what the implications are for the failure to update it. Again software maintenance is an “ECDIS life skill” which needs to be given the proper emphasis on ECDIS training courses.

Cyber Risk Management

IMO MSC 96 outcome New interim Guidelines On Maritime Cyber Risk Management Issued very shortly High level guidance Industry guidelines provide detail

Industry guidance Identify Protect Detect Respond Recover

Vulnerabilities Broadband internet Automatic transmissions Software updates Chart corrections E-mail The USB stick

Summary INTERTANKO Nautical sub-committee has a broad agenda Need ECDIS guidelines that cover the needs of the tanker owners E-Navigation will add to the ECDIS complexity. Cyber Risk Management a key in e-Nav INTERTANKO will monitor this development.

Thank you Phillip.Belcher@intertanko.com Port of Gotheburg, Sweden: Photo: Johan Gahnström More information, www.intertanko.com