Maritime IT & Electronics (April/May 2012)

April/May 2012

Titanic radioroom revealed

Inmarsat pricehike controversy

Digital chartconfusion

it cover.qxd:IT Dec cover.qxd 5/4/12 14:22 Page 1

IFC.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 10:03 Page 1

CONTENTSEditor: Kevin [email protected]

MITE Advertising Manager:[email protected]

Graphic Designer:[email protected]

Publication Sales & Subscriptions:[email protected]

Publisher: Derek [email protected]

Visit MITE online:www.imarest.org/MITE

Aldgate House, 33 Aldgate High Street,London. EC3N 1EN. UKTel: +44 (0) 20 7382 2600Fax: +44 (0) 20 7382 2669www.imarest.org

Published by

APRIL/MAY 2012

3 Comment

4 News

OPINION7 Why so convoluted?Why is buying digital charts socomplicated, asks MikeRobinson

SATCOMS8 Inmarsat antagonisesRevised tariffs forFleetBroadband have sparkedoutrage10 Holding to accountWhy Greek IT managers openlyobject to Inmarsatʼs price hikes11 Satcoms updateKVH opens a new six-leggedantenna testing facility

CREW WELFARE12 Making a port callPorts remain reluctant to lay onWiFi for passing seafarers13 Coming of ageTo date, shipowners have beenunconvinced by VoIP. Is itabout to come of age?

SAFETY14 Crossed wiresRadio played a pivotal role inmitigating the Titanic disaster18 Shipping faces new risksIt still takes a disaster to spur onsafety improvements20 Probing fatigueOfficersʼ brains scanned to getto the bottom of fatigue

NEWS FOCUS22 Ten years of innovationNexans has designed cablesthat tolerate extreme conditions23 Data tsunamiCruise ship operators shouldexpect major growth in mobiledata

DISPLAYS24 Crash-proof enginesSoftware failure is not an optionwhen designing the controlsystems for ship engines26 Burning brightlyNew display technologies offera brighter picture at theexpense of shorter life

NAVIGATION28 e-Navigation underwayThe issues explored and road-map decided aboard the Crownof Scandinavia31 Alarming inexperienceHalf of bridge officers haveused ECDIS at sea beforefinishing their training

DIVERSIONS32 Return of the dronesUnmanned autonomous orsemi-autonomous remote-controlled vessels reconsidered

The content of this journal is recorded in the IMarEST Marine Technology Abstracts available on CD-ROM and in the SciSearch and Research Alert databases of the Institute of ScientificInformation, USA

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopyingor otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Copyright © 2012 IMarEST, The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and TechnologyInformation published in MARITIME IT & ELECTRONICS does not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. Whilst effort is made to ensure that the information is accurate thepublisher makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of such information. It accepts no responsibility whatsoever for anyloss damage or other liability arising from any use of this publication or the information which it contains.

CONTS2.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 11:21 Page 2

2.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 10:10 Page 1

MITE April/May 2012 3

COMMENT

adjusting the contents of theirplan accordingly.

Unless, that is, the phonecompany decides to withdrawcertain bundles completely.Which is exactly what Inmarsatstands accused of doing. It hasreduced customer choice bydeleting its cheapest plan andimposing increases of between20-40% (depending on how youdo the math) on its most popularlower-end packages.

Its general argument is thatlarger (and more expensive)packages have become more eco-nomic. And that ship owners canuse the extra data available toimprove operational efficiencieselsewhere in their business, forexample, downloading more ac-curate weather charts etc. Inshort, you have to speculate toaccumulate. There is certainlysome truth to this logic. It’s alsotrue that satcoms bills representonly a small fraction of overallOPEX.

Bad timingYet it must have known that sucha policy wouldn’t endear itself toits customers at any time. Itmight just have got away withimplementing the new tariffs atthe top of an economic boom,but instead it chose to act in themidst of a double-dip recession.Either way, it seems to have un-derestimated the upsurge in dis-content that has been voiced ononline discussion groups and atconferences – which is ironic fora company that is often espous-ing the value of social network-ing and communications.

The company further aggra-vated matters by implementingthe new tariff on existing cus-tomers rather than just new busi-ness. But the biggest criticism is

Inmarsat has reallymanaged to set thecat among the pi-geons with the intro-

duction of a new tariff for itspioneering FleetBroadband serv-ice. The upwardly revised pric-ing regime has angered manyship owners and operators whohave not only come to rely uponInmarsat’s communication serv-ices but have also factored itscosts into their budgets.

But before examining the fac-tors fuelling this discontent, it isworth taking a quick realitycheck: satcoms is cheaper todaythan it has ever been in the pastand in terms of bang for buckcontinues on a downward trend,thanks largely to technologicalprogress but also due to in-creased expectations.

That said, whether due toeconomic shocks or simply infla-tion, there are always occasionswhen markets have to realign.Put more simply, prices alwaysgo up, eventually. The questionis whether Inmarsat has mis-judged the timing for trying toinstigate a realignment.

Infinite permutationsAnyone who has ever researchedbuying a new mobile phoneknows that choosing a price planis never easy. There seem to bean almost infinite number of per-mutations involving bundledvoice minutes, bundled data, in-ternational roaming, handset up-grades, insurance and otherbolt-on services.

For the phone companies,this makes good business sense.The idea is to manipulate eachcustomer into paying the maxi-mum he/she is willing to pay.Customers can then accommo-date periodic price increases by

saved for across-the-board in-creases to its legacy ‘Existing &Evolved’ services and in particu-lar Inmarsat-C which facilitatesemergency telex communicationfor the legally required GMDSS.

In an open letter to Inmarsat(published in this issue, p10),AMMITEC, the Greek associationof IT managers, contends thisconstitutes a ‘blatant abuse ofmonopoly power’ since Inmarsatis, at present, the only providerof GMDSS communications to beendorsed by IMO. It is worth not-ing in this regard that Iridiumhas long wished to gain the sta-tus of an official GMDSS commu-nication provider but itsapplication appears lost in IMO’sKafka-esque bureaucracy.

There are positive signs how-ever that this could finally beabout to change, since COMSAR,the IMO subcommittee responsi-ble for such things, has draftednew Guidance for prospectiveproviders at its annual session inMarch which will be submittedfor approval this summer.

Backdoor closedIridium’s executives might yethave more reason to cheer. Oneof the inferred explanations forthe forced phasing out of thesmaller, cheaper tariff plans isthat Inmarsat was none toopleased by competitor VSATproviders taking to bundlingFleetBroadband with their offer-ings – as an emergency connec-tivity backdoor when ships sailoutside Ku-band coverage areas.Especially since Inmarsat itselfintends to enter the VSAT mar-ketplace with a Ka-band servicescheduled for 2014.

Has Inmarsat over-stepped the line?

Kevin TesterEditor

comment.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 11:23 Page 3

4 MITE April/May 2012

NEWS

A draft timetable to bring theGlobal Maritime Distress andSafety System (GMDSS) up todate, to allow modern tech-nologies to be incorporatedinto the system and to enhanceand improve safety of life at sea,was agreed by IMOʼs Sub-Com-mittee on Radio-communica-tions and Search and Rescue(COMSAR) when it met for its16th session this March. Thedraft work plan, including thetimetable, for the revision andmodernisation of GMDSS willbe submitted to the MaritimeSafety Committee (MSC 90) forapproval.

Evolving technology willcontinue to drive change inthe maritime communicationssystem. The Sub-Committeeagreed on the many reasonsfor a review, including the factthat the GMDSS ‒ which wasadopted by means of amend-ments to SOLAS in 1988 andfully implemented by 1999 ‒needs to be modernised to in-clude new technologies, oth-erwise ship operators may find

themselves carrying obsoleteequipment for the sole pur-pose of meeting a SOLAS re-quirement. The benefits thatare expected to emerge in-clude enhancement of safetyand security in general, andnavigation safety in particular,environmental protection andgeneral communications forthe industry.

The plan envisages a fullycomprehensive review of theGMDSS requirements con-tained in SOLAS Chapter IV(Radio-communications), totake place over a three-year pe-riod (2013‒2015), followed by afurther two-year period (2015-2017) for the GMDSS moderni-sation plan, to be succeeded bythe development of legal in-struments, revision/develop-ment of relevant performancestandards and an implementa-tion period.

A correspondence groupwas set up to begin the reviewof the GMDSS, after the ap-proval of the Work Plan by theMaritime Safety Committee.

IMO sets timetable for GMDSS revamp

The Sub-committee alsoagreed a draft MSC circular onGuidance to prospectiveGMDSS satellite service

providers, for approval by theMSC. The guidance provides ad-ditional information to comple-ment that provided inresolution A.1001(25) Criteriafor the provision of mobilesatellite communication sys-tems in the Global Maritime Dis-tress and Safety System(GMDSS).

� GMDSS equipment is in needof modernisation

Marlink has increased the band-width capacity for Ku-band VSATdata services it gets from satel-lite operator Telenor and signedup for Ka-band capacity, due tocome online in 2014. The extracapacity was negotiated when itcame for the maritime VSATprovider to renew its contract foranother three years.

Utilising Telenor SatelliteBroadcastingʼs capacity on theIntelsat 10-02 satellite, Marlinksays it will be able to comfort-ably meet future demand fromits maritime clients ‒ includingoffshore, merchant marine andpassenger ship operators ‒ inthe busy oceanic areas of theNordic, European and MiddleEastern regions.

Located at the orbital loca-

tion, 1°W, Intelsatʼs 10-02 bird iscapable of delivering high datathroughput at latitudes above60°N, a geographical region thatis crucial for many of Marlinkʼscustomers. The renewed agree-ment is said to provide signifi-cant Ku-band capacity on Spot 2of the satellite and almost 200MHz Ku-band on Spot 1.

In a further move to createa flexible growth path, theagreement with Telenor alsoconfirms an option for Marlinkto use the Ka-band payload ofthe new THOR 7 satellite whichwill be operational in early2014. This should provideenough capacity to support theincreased demand anticipatedfrom maritime customers in thecoming years.

Marlink ups Ku-band capacity, reserves bandwidth on Ka- bird

Intellian has launched a newKu-band VSAT antenna, thev110GX, which can be up-graded to work with InmarsatʼsGlobal Xpress (GX) Ka-bandservice when it comes onlinearound 2014.

The modular GX conversionkit includes an adapted BUC/LNB(block up convertor/low noiseblock) assembly, feed assemblyand antenna control unit (incor-porating the modem). A re-vamped pedestal design andnew mounting architecture issupposed to make conversion toKa-band as straightforward aspossible, by allowing the RFmodule and feedhorn inside theradome to be replaced manually.

The GX BUC/LNB assembly isattached to the rear side of the

reflector, with no requirement tore-balance the system. Once theACU is replaced and power issupplied, the system will be im-mediately ready for GlobalXpress operation. The entire con-version can be done in the fieldwith minimal time and expense.

Other features include a fa-cility for remote control andmonitoring of the antenna; agyro-free satellite search func-tion (for locking onto the satel-lite without requiring separateinput from the shipʼs main gyro-compass); and a triple axis sta-bilised pedestal that offerunlimited azimuth, enhancedelevation range and cross-level(to ensure service quality athigh latitudes and in extremeoperating conditions).

Intellian offers DIY upgrade options for switch to Ka-band

news.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 11:53 Page 4


The doors to the 11th Confer-ence for Computer and IT appli-cations in the Maritime Industry(COMPIT) are set to open 16April in Liege, Belgium. Thisyearʼs event is expected to at-tract more than 80 specialistsfrom around the world, whenspeakers from industry, acade-mia and other research bodiesunleash another collection ofideas on subjects as diverse aspropulsion efficiency, risk-baseddesign and underwater robotics.

ʻThe ongoing quest for en-ergy efficiency is continuing todrive the development of IT ap-plications in the maritime sectorʼ,explains Prof. Dr. Volker Bertram,who is once again charged withorganising the event. ̒ Computa-tional fluid dynamics (CFD) is akey technology in this respect.Technology leaders are couplingCFD to formal optimisation to

create fuel efficient designs forhulls, propulsion improving de-vices and propellers. Severalcompanies are spearheading de-velopments in monitoring anddecision support tools for shipoperators, with a focus on fuel ef-ficiency and emissions compli-ance.ʼ

Meanwhile the emergenceof risk-based assessment in IMOregulations and classificationrules has sparked the develop-ment of a new breed of IT tools tomanage both design and opera-tional procedures, notes Bertram.

This yearʼs event will alsoshed light on how advances inindividual and swarm intelli-gence, when deployed on un-derwater autonomous vehicles,are opening new applications insurveying, hull cleaning andsearch tasks, in the offshore,oceanographic and naval fields.

NEWS

Unleashing innovative ideas

Against the backdrop of Satellite 2012 in Washington, Orbit showcasedits latest innovations in the maritime VSAT space, namely the brandnew OrSat 300 and the breakthrough OrBand system.

The OrSat 300 is intended as future-proof solution for bridging thegap between current Ku-band and forthcoming Ka-band VSAT services.The 1.15m/45” dish, which will be commercially available from this sum-mer, is built to support a wide range of configurations with different RFpackages ‒ for Ku- or Ka- or X-band ‒ and BUC power levels.

Meanwhile, OrBand, released in mid-2011, is a smaller than averageC-band maritime VSAT system that was designed from the outset to de-liver enhanced RF performance, and support multiple optional RF feeds.

Compliant with EutelSatʼs standard-M characterisation and Anatelʼshomologation certificates, the OrBand features 2.2m/87" dish and a2.7m/106" radome, which takes up 40% less deck space than industry-standard 2.4m/95" dish and 3.8m/150" radome systems. This means itis small enough to be shipped as a single, fully assembled and testedunit in a standard 20-foot container and, according to Orbit, can evenbe erected in a single day. This compares favourably vis-à-vis the twoto three days that are usually required to complete the work. Conse-quently, OrBand can be installed while ships are on routine port calls,substantially driving down operational costs and eliminating the needfor vessels to await dry dock.

ʻWith almost 100 systems ordered by more than 10 customers, Or-Band has proved to be a real game-changer in the C-band maritimeVSAT market,ʼ said Avi Cohen, Orbit president and chief-executive.

Orbit showcases Ka-band kit



Iridium says its NEXT generation constellation will be operational inless than 36 months. Having recently finished the satellite prelimi-nary design review phase, the NEXT Mission Team will now turn toconstructing engineering model units that will be used to verify thedesign and performance of the system prior to full construction startin 2013. Below is a top-level, year-by-year summary of what to expectin the in the evolution of the Iridium NEXT constellation:2012: Detailed hardware and software design culminating in theSpace Segment Critical Design Review (CDR) in early 20132013: Initial space and launch vehicle hardware production and ex-tensive performance testing to ensure it meets its requirements2014: Satellite and launcher/dispenser level qualification testing andthe initiation of satellite low-rate production in preparation for thefirst launch2015: First year of launching and integrating Iridium NEXT satellite ve-hicles into the Iridium constellation; transition to full-rate production2016: Second year of launching and integrating the Iridium NEXTsatellite vehicles2017: Planned complete constellation replacement with IridiumNEXT fully operational

NEWS

NEXT online in 36-months

The US Coast Guard and UrsaNav are carrying out on-air tests of a lowfrequency positioning, navigation and timing system from a formerLoran Support Unit site in New Jersey. The tests are part of an on-going programme to develop a ̒ sky-freeʼ alternative to the Global Po-sitioning System (GPS), over-reliance on which has become a causefor concern in recent years.

Additional on-air tests are planned throughout the United States.Broadcasts will test several different frequencies, waveforms and mod-ulation techniques using ʻevolutionary, state-of-the-art technologyʼ.Broadcasts will be received at both on-shore and off-shore locations.

The US Coast Guard decommissioned its network of low-fre-quency Loran transmitters in 2010 in a widely criticised move to savesome pennies. The fact it is now investigating the potential of evolvedvariants of the low-frequency technology suggests it might now berueing that decision.

Sky-free tests underway

Following in the footsteps ofDatema and more recently Nav-tor, Transas has decided now isthe time to try and make thenavigatorʼs world a better placeby announcing its own Pay-As-You-Sail (PAYS) service for dis-tributing electronic charts. TheECDIS manufacturerʼs new serv-ice has already received thegreen-light from UKHO, PRIMARand IC-ENC subsequent to seatrials and verification by DNV,the Norwegian class society.

Traditionally navigators hadto select and purchase chartsprior to each voyage using whatis commonly called pre-licens-ing method. With Transas PAYSsolution, the vessel is given a li-cense and access to install, viewand pre-plan using official(S)ENCs without additional cost.

Vessels only pay for charts ac-tually used for navigation moni-toring. In other words, only chartsthat have been displayed on thescreen together with ships posi-tion or generated navigationalalarms. In principle, this is ʻbestscale charts onlyʼ, not all charts

and scale bands under the keel.The unique aspect of its PAYS so-lution is that the recording andreporting of charts used is doneby extracting data from TransasNavi-Sailor 4000 ECDIS logbook.

Transasʼ PAYS implementa-tion uses the companyʼs gate-way firewall device to ensuredata relating to licensing trans-actions, corrections and chart re-ports are transmitted securelybetween the vesselʼs ECDIS con-sole and the shore-based chartserver.

ʻWith the official Transas Ad-miralty Data Service (TADS)SENC-service developed in co-operation with the UKHO,Transas ̒ Pay As You Sailʼ gives thevessel access to the most costand time efficient (S)ENC serviceon the market and the best(S)ENC coverage available fornavigation and planning. Besidesthe vesselʼs internet connection,no extra communication equip-ment or tracking service isneeded,ʼ says Anders Rydlinger,Transasʼ head of marine naviga-tion product development.

Transas PAYS it forward

Singpore ship manager Thomehas opted for a Very Large Al-lowance package from Inmarsatto satisfy the varying data andcommunication needs of shipsin its varied fleet. Most vesselswill be equipped with Fleet-Broadband 500 terminals (up to432kbps), while the remainderwill be kitted out with smaller FB250 models. Distribution partnerfor the deal, AND Group, will alsobe rolling out its IPSignature2communications managementsoftware.

ʻWe selected FleetBroad-band because of its scalability,ʼsays Ryan Dalgado, procure-ment manager at Thome Ship

Management. ʻThe deal weʼvestruck incorporates plans forheavy users within our fleet andsmaller packages for less inten-sive use. It gives us options for allvessel types, and with a largeand diverse fleet like ours, thatlevel of flexibility was very at-tractive,ʼ he explains.

ANDʼs IPSignature2 will beemployed to analyse and controlthe use, and thereby cost, of dataservices to and from vessel,whether generated by email,generic web-surfing or othernet-enabled applications. It com-presses and optimises data trans-fers, wherever possible, to obtainthe greatest network efficiency.

Thome attracted by large package

Inmarsat has launched freeshore-to-ship priority voicecalling for rescue co-ordina-tion centres (RCC) over itsFleetBroadband and legacyservices, including Inmarsat B,Fleet F77/55/33 and Mini M.

The service allows offi-cially recognised maritime res-cue centres to place a priorityvoice call to any ship equippedwith Inmarsat equipment,with the space segment of thecall being free of charge.

ʻSafety communicationsremain at the heart of In-marsat, and this latest addi-tion to our portfolio goes one

step further to makingmarinersʼ lives safer,ʼ saidPeter Blackhurst, Inmarsathead of maritime safety serv-ices.

It is more than two yearssince Inmarsat launched itsfree-of-change emergency callout service for users of Fleet-Broadband. Unlike the com-panyʼs legacy services,FleetBroadband isnʼt GMDSScompliant out-of-the-box. Toaddress this, it wired up 505 ‒selected for its similarity toSOS ‒ to let mariners immedi-ately contact a RCC in theevent of an emergency.

Free outgoing calls

NEWS IN BRIEF

GE Satcom has changed ownership and become Signalhorn. The formalrechristening took place in February and includes the entire GE Satcomor Satlynx group of companies located in Germany, Switzerland, Lux-embourg and other key locations.



OPINION

free for planning and only chargedfor when actually used, there'snever been a paper chart rentalmarket, and unofficial paper chartsare non-existent... so why is this?

Well, it’s simply because thecustomer sees the basic cost ofpaper charts as being reasonableand therefore the type of fancymechanisms used to try to re-duce the perceived cost of ENCshaven't been required, nor haveunofficial charts.

I firmly believe that the intro-duction of shorter license peri-ods, differential pricing forsmaller charts, and PAYS serv-ices, are merely the industry's at-tempt at addressing thesymptoms as nobody has actuallysucceeded in addressing the ac-tual problem, that being that digi-tal charts are significantly moreexpensive than paper charts.

So are they really? Well,UKHO's AVCS service has thebest value, and the most exten-sive ENC coverage, of any serv-ice and to buy every ENC for ayear would cost around £100k.

In comparison, the completeseries of BA paper charts wouldcost £75k. Let's say to get equiva-lent coverage you'd need another8000 larger scale charts fromother HO's at an average cost of£15, the total cost would be£200k. However, you'd own thepaper charts and can use themuntil the next new edition is pub-lished and given the averagetime between new editions isaround four years, the like-for-

Why have we made buying digitalcharts so complicated asks Mike Robinson, in the first of a newregular column for MITE

RENCs, S57, S63, en-cryption, permits, li-cences, IHO, SENCdistributor, HOs, VARs,

SENC, AIO, large/medium/smallcells, PRIMAR, folio, qualified dis-tributor, 3/6/9/12 month licences,updates, official, unofficial, CMAP,CM93, ARCS, TX97, trial license,Jeppesen PRIMAR, Pay As YouSail (PAYS)... these are just a fewof the terms that someone todaybuying electronic charts (ENCs)needs to understand.

Then you must decide whoto buy from, and ensure you un-derstand exactly what you'rebuying; not so easy as some sup-pliers have confusing product of-ferings. Take Jeppesen forexample: they produce CM93, anunofficial chart service, butthrough the Jeppesen ENC serv-ice they also provide ENCs inboth SENC and non-SENC for-mat (and they name their SENCformat CM93 - confusing as it’salso the name of their unofficialservice), and furthermore, withthe Jeppesen PRIMAR service,they also supply a mixed offi-cial/unofficial service. Likewise,in terms of PAYS services, thereare now at least four available,all slightly different. Confusing... definitely ... especially whenyou consider how simple it is tobuy paper charts!

And, if you think it can’t getany more confusing, just take alook at ENC pricing – it makesmobile phone tariffs look posi-tively simple. So, why is it socomplicated? Well, there aremany reasons, but I want tofocus on just one.

For decades, mariners havepurchased paper charts. There’snever been the concept of differen-tial pricing based on chart size,paper charts haven’t needed to be

like cost of paper charts reducesto £50k and therefore ENCs are,in reality, double the cost.

It shouldn't therefore be sur-prising that unofficial digitalcharts exist, or that complicatedmechanisms have been devel-oped to make the cost of ENCsappear lower to the mariner,however, using a PAYS service, orby buying shorter licenses, youmight actually end up paying sig-nificantly more.

So why hasn't the underlyingproblem been solved? Well, it's notthat easy as it would require co-or-dinated action from the IHO andits member states and, as an es-teemed retired Admiral once saidto me: ‘There's more politics in hy-drography than hydrography.’

So what is required? First, ir-respective of the fact one couldargue that the problem is thatpaper charts are too cheap, allHOs should agree to providetheir ENCs on terms that wouldallow them to be sold at a priceequivalent to that of their papercharts, after taking into accountnew edition frequency.

Second, in addition to anyother options they offer, the IHOshould require RENCs to providea unified simple pricing/licens-ing option. Finally, the IHOshould require its members to ei-ther join a RENC, or alterna-tively, provide their ENCsdirectly to end-user ENC serviceproviders using the same simplepricing/licensing option.

If this happened, then ENCpricing could be simplified and beat a level the customer perceivedas reasonable - then there would beno need for differential pricing, noneed for 3/6/9/12 month licenseoptions, no requirement for com-plex PAYS services, and no needfor unofficial data.

Oh, why soconvoluted?

opinion.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:04 Page 7

SATCOMS


Finally it points out that in-creased pricing on non-Fleet-Broadband legacy services (suchas Fleet 77 and Inmarsat-C)which operate on the deprecatedI3-generation satellites is neces-sary to cover the overheads ofmaintaining these older net-works as more customers switchto FleetBroadband. It is worthmentioning here that Inmarsat-Cis a component of GMDSS andthus a legal requirement, towhich there are no alternatives.

But while it would be easy toclaim the company is abusing its‘monopoly’ position in the mar-itime market, the actual pictureis never quite as black and white(Apart from not being a con-structive argument, Inmarsat’sdominant position is rather lessassured than it was in years goneby). But for all intents and pur-poses, the overall intentionseems to be to move ship ownersaway from pay-as-you-go roll-over plans and on to higher vol-

Inmarsat has revised the tariffs for itspopular FleetBroadband servicesparking outrage among its shippingindustry customers ‒ especially thosewho donʼt use much data

The most eye-wateringchanges will be to theentry level Standardprice plan. This

monthly post-paid roll-over pack-age bundled with 10Mb will nowcost over $200 before any excessout-of-bundle charges, while thesmaller 5Mb offering has beenphased out altogether. Meanwhile,25Mb and 50Mb quarterly roll-overpackages have rocketed by morethan 40%. Significantly the revisedrates – which come into effect 1May – will apply to existing sub-scribers as well as new activations.

Retroactive price increasesare never popular. Ship ownerswho adopted FleetBroadbandbased on its original value propo-sition will now be presented witha significant hike in their run-ning costs, which isn’t going tocurry favour especially in cur-rent economic conditions.

The company quickly re-acted to quell the discontent byissuing an explanation of thenew pricing strategy. This high-lighted a price reduction in mid-level, 1-5Gb and Very LargeAllowance (VLA) plans to ensureits ‘core customer base’ benefitsfrom reduced per-Mb price.

It also emphasised a shift infocus from ‘money bundles’(where a package included x dol-lars worth of voice calls) to ‘dataallowances’, reflecting the in-creasing demand for IP data andciting a need to fall in line withindustry-wide convention. Thehike in the Standard plan wasjustified by the value it providesas a highly reliable pay-as-you-goutility. The company openly ad-mits that regular customers ofthe Standard plan would get abetter deal by migrating to ahigher level plan.

ume subscription data plans. So the changes will particu-

larly hurt vessel operators whomanage perfectly well getting bywithout sending huge volumes ofdata each month. The majorityof shipowners in fact use be-tween 50-100Mb/month, so hav-ing to switching to plans thatonly become cost-effective at vol-umes much more than thatwould appear to be a false econ-omy.

Inmarsat knows many ofthese owners appreciate thestraightforwardness of its prod-ucts and services. They value thesimplicity of installation andease of operation - despite effortsby VSAT providers to up theirgame. The cost of installing andoperating VSAT has fallen signifi-cantly in recent times. For in-stance, KVH is touting a $49monthly rate for 50Mb (plus$500/month equipment leasecosts over three years). Not longago it announced its dual Ku-/C-band antenna, designed to over-come the coverage limitations ofa Ku- only solution. And its hard-ware is getting more compactand easier to install too.

But it is still perceived as an‘complex’ solution and thereforecannot match FleetBroadband for‘plug-and-play’-ability and reli-able ‘just-there’ worldwide cover-age. That said, ship owners willonly value the convenience ofFleetBroadband up to a certainpoint. So the challenge for In-marsat as it increases its tariffs isnot to overstep the mark

It is questionable whethervessels - particularly those innon-merchant marine segments -that routinely transmit only oneor two megs daily (about 30-60Mb/month) will ever contem-

Inmarsat price hikesantagonise industry

NEW COSTS FOR LOW DATA USERS*

Monthly use 30Mb 60Mb 90Mb 150Mb 300Mb

Equivalent daily use 1Mb 2Mb 3Mb 5Mb 10Mb

FleetBroadband 300 540 972 1200 1700

Inmarsat Fleet 540 1080 1620 2700 5400

Inmarsat B 750 1500 2250 3750 7500

KVH mini-VSAT 49 69 129 248 349

*Prices in US dollars. Hardware costs must be added for total monthly bill

sats3.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:02 Page 8

Another lamented aspect ofthe tariff change is the with-drawal of inclusive voice min-utes. Having to pay for voiceseparately could add signifi-cantly to a vessel’s monthly sat-coms outlay. The obvious answerhere would be to consider VoIPsolutions. While off-the-shelfconsumer-grade products likeSkype are not suited to use oversatellite links, there are mar-itime-optimised offerings such asthose from Horizon and Vobal.These specialised products usemore efficient codecs to reduceoverhead (ie, bandwidth con-sumed) and are supposed to bemore tolerant of latency.

That said, to date experienceof VoIP at sea has been mixed. Ithas been claimed for examplethat one of the reasons Maerskdecided in favour of VSAT wasbecause of latency problems run-ning VoIP over FleetBroadband.

Assuming the technologydoes perform as it should, whena certain amount of voice min-utes were included in Inmarsat’s

tariffs, the cost benefits of de-ploying a VoIP solution weremarginal at best. The cost of dataconsumed making a VoIP callwas finely balanced with simplyplacing a circuit-switched (fully-terminated) voice call. Now thatvoice minutes are excluded how-ever, the scales may now tip infavour of more widespread VoIPusage.

There could be an altogetherdifferent reason for raising costsfor low-usage FleetBroadbandcustomers - and it goes back toVSAT. As reported in previouseditions of MITE, it has becomecommon practice for resellers ofVSAT services to include a Fleet-Broadband terminal in their in-stallations. It functions asfallback source of connectivity ifa vessel sails outside its Ku-bandcoverage footprint, or can act asan emergency backdoor in theevent of the antenna malfunc-tioning in some way that re-quires it to be reset remotely byland-based specialists practicedin such arcane arts.

Depending on how much thisso-called ‘out-of-band’ connectiv-ity is activated, significantlyramping up the costs of such oc-casional usage could make theoverall financial case for VSATless attractive vis-a-vis Inmarsat’sown very large allowance (orsimilar) plans.

� Under therevised tariffs,shipowners willnow have to payseparately forvoice calls


SATCOMS

plate VSAT. If they do decide tovote with their feet, it is Iridiumthat is most likely to benefit.

It is notable that Inmarsathas not presented any viablecontingency offerings for, say,fishing vessels, workboats andother smaller tonnage, segmentsthat were attracted by the con-venience explained above as wellas the pay-as-you-go post-paidservice model. Of course, thismight change in the future butby then the damage would havebeen done. It will be difficult toregain the confidence of dissatis-fied customers.

For the very bottom of themarket, the company will retainthe ‘Fishing and Leisure Al-lowance’ plans, which start ataround $60/month with 5Mbdata and 30mins voice inclusive.But exceed the bundle quotas,then each additional Mb costs$20. If the customer transmits10Mb data - hardly excessive bytoday’s standards - then he willhave to fork out $300-plus for theprivilege!

Avoiding the runaway costson this kind of plan requires apro-active reseller that spellseverything out and sets up ap-propriate dashboard restrictionsto limit and blockunnecessary/non-essential usage- Windows updates being theclassic example.

Hardware cost Retail 36-months

Inmarsat FB150 7500 208

Inmarsat FB250 12 500 347

Inmarsat FB500 19 000 528

KVH mini-VSAT V3 17 000 472

KVH mini-VSAT V7 33 000 917

*Data supplied by KVH


SATCOMS


to Fleet-77 from Sat-B, were im-plemented with a ‘stable andsustainable model that led to abalanced implementation andcost models’.

Earlier roll-outs gave the in-dustry time to cost plan with aproject system life of approxi-mately 10 years. ‘Many shippingcompanies selected FBB equip-ment based upon the originalpricing model and now the factsare changing. Now IT managershave to re-evaluate the ROI andcosts of FleetBroadband underthe newly imposed scheme.’

AMMITEC is concerned toothat the retro-actively imposedprice revision sets an unwel-come precedent. It goes on toask how Inmarsat can justifyraising the base subscription lev-els on Standard FBB plan bythree times their current rateand raising for the per MB costwhen they clearly realise mostmerchant vessels operate on thisplan. In its view, the move is de-signed ‘to raise revenue at theexpense of their customer basewhich at this time is relativelycaptive.’

Furthermore, the group be-lieves the substitution of themoney bundles with data al-lowances will lead to a further

AMMITEC, an association representingIT managers working in the Greekmaritime industry, has issued an openletter that raises its objections toInmarsatʼs revised pricing structure

The group regardsthe ~15% increaseon Inmarsat-C telexcommunications,

which are a legal IMO require-ment on all merchant vessels,and for which there is no alter-native, as an unacceptable abuseby Inmarsat of its monopoly sta-tus. As such, it should be re-ferred to Inmarsat’s regulatorIMSO and IMO COMSAR.

The organisation goes on toargue that the ~15% increase onExisting & Evolved (E&E) com-munications systems – in partic-ular Fleet F77 – is a blatant pushto remove existing users with‘older’ equipment, from the I3satellites and force migrationonto the I4 platform.

‘This “economically imposedmigration” is five years earlierthan is normal for such a hard-ware migration, especially as noend of life for Fleet services hasbeen announced to date. BeingGMDSS capable, Inmarsat isobliged to give at least five yearsnotice prior to closure. In lieu ofthis, migration by stealth willnot be tolerated.’

This action is construed as amove either to allocate existingspectrum bandwidth to new rev-enue streams or force customersinto unwanted, overpriced andlengthy contracts for the newerproducts. ‘It is both morallyquestionable and potentiallyanti-competitive,’ the letterstates.

The new FleetBroadbandpricing regime will result in ‘anunsupportable rise in costs onan industry already operating atlittle or zero profit margin ondaily rates’, it goes on to say.Previous roll-outs of new tech-nologies, such as the migration

20-30% cost increase, dependingon the amount of voice for eachvessel. ‘We all know that mostcompanies spend only 50-60MBout of the 125MB of the previousentry plan, but they could con-sume the rest of their moneybundle in voice minutes. Nowbecause voice is not included inthe entry plan, there will defi-nitely be an increase in monthlyinvoices, of approximately $150-$200. This gives an [overall] in-crease of almost 30%. There willalso be a considerable amount ofunused data being charged for,with an average unused amountof between 150 and 140Mb pervessel. We could, therefore, bepaying effectively $700 for50MB, which equates to$14/MB!’

Finally it makes the pointthat the alteration in the billingincrements for Fleet, mini-Mand other legacy E&E systems,which were forced upon cus-tomers last year, led to a priceincrease of around 6%. How, thegroup wonders, will a further 20-30% increase help Inmarsat re-tain customers in difficulteconomic times especially withnew satcoms technologiesemerging.

In summary AMMITEC findsthe handling of the tariff revi-sion to be ‘in blatant disregard ofthe long-term loyalty and trustthat up until a few years ago themajority of the shipping worldhad held Inmarsat and its mar-itime offerings in’.

The group closed its mis-sive by inviting Inmarsat toopenly discuss these issueswithin the Greek maritimecommunity and the wider mar-itime community who are all asequally affected.

IT managers holdInmarsat to account



SATCOMS

VSAT PROVIDER KVH hasopened a new testing facility,which houses a custom-madehexapod motion simulator, at itsglobal headquarters in Rhode Is-land. Construction of the facilitybegan in 2010 and was com-pleted in 2011, creating a dedi-cated space with a perfect viewto real satellites so that ad-vanced motion testing of anten-nas can be carried out.

The observatory is equippedwith a specially-commissionedcurved wall of windows that of-fers a clear line of sight to satel-lites in geostationary orbits toKVH antennas. The facility has acantilever roof, which uses abeam anchored at only one endof the structure. This single-beam support ensures that thearced windows on the oppositewall have no corner columns orother obstructions.

KVH also used polycarbon-ate windows to ensuring clearreception of satellite transmis-sions. Standard glass windowscontain traces of lead, whichcause interference, so the com-pany opted to use translucentpolycarbonate instead to moreaccurately replicate the outdoorconditions in which fielded sys-tems operate.

ʻThe design and location ofthe building lets our engineerstest products efficiently andthoroughly in a controlled envi-ronment,ʼ says Jeffrey Greer, VPof operations. ʻThe rectangularshape of the building, with its

arced radius of windows, pro-vides a full, clear view of theClarke Belt*,ʼ he explains.

Antennas destined for KVHʼsportfolio are routinely subjectedto testing procedures, such as vi-bration, humidity and motionsimulation tests, and the newhexapod ‒ or Stewart Platform ‒allows even greater flexibility forthese operations.

ʻOur bespoke hexapod al-lows us to test our products likeno one else,ʼ says Robert Balog,senior VP of engineering. Themotion simulator uses pistons toindividually control the length ofeach of the six legs, therebyreplicating the tumultuousmovements experienced onyachts and commercial vessels,especially during bad weather.This process helps to ensure thatfielded antennas are capable ofmaintaining a lock on the satel-lite without any malfunctionsdue to vigorous or unexpectedmovement.

* The Clarke Belt is the part of space about

36,000km (22,000mi) above sea level, in

the plane of the Equator, where near-geo-

stationary orbits may be implemented.

Hexapod with a clear view

IMTECH MARINE is looking toposition itself as a one-stopshop for the commissioningand on-going maintenance ofVSAT systems.

The Dutch systems integra-tor has signed agreements withthree major antenna manufac-turers ‒ Intellian, Jotron andThrane & Thrane ‒ allowing it tosupply, install, arrange airtimeand service the systems from

any its 80 branches around theworld.

The company already hadrelationships with these man-ufacturers through its sub-sidiary Radio Holland.Specifically, the agreementsrelate to Thrane & ThraneʼsSailor 900 VSAT and Sat TV;Jotronʼs B120 VSAT antenna;and a range of Intellian VSATand TVRO products.

Imtech will look after everything

� The hexapod simulatestumultuous motion


� Ports coulddo more toimprove seafarerwelfare


not implementing port-widewireless technology was a lack ofdemand, followed by concernsabout security and the cost of in-stalling and ongoing operationand maintenance. Security alsoranked highly as a reason for notallowing access to existing net-works. That said, the researchteam found examples of portsthat had successfully managedthe security issues.

The cost of installing port-wide WiFi or WiMAX was foundto vary considerably dependentupon the ports’ size and topogra-phy, the choice of technologyand the existing degree of infra-structure. The research alsoidentified opportunities for gen-erating modest amounts of rev-

Ports remain reluctant to roll-out WiFi,despite it being a well proventechnology and one that wouldmarkedly improve seafarer welfare

While the ideasounds simple inprinciple, bringingWiFi, or its big-

brother WiMAX, to ports for thebenefit of transient seafarers hasfailed to catch on in practice. TheInternational Committee on Sea-farers’ Welfare (ICSW) wanted tofind out the reasons why and lastyear it carried out one of thelargest investigations into thesubject to date.

The research managed togather feedback from 72 ports,around 10% of ports worldwide.Of those responding to the sur-vey, just under a third said theyhad port-wide WiFi and one-in-ten had port-wide WiMAX. Aquarter of those ports with nei-ther technology in place at themoment, reported they had plansfor the technology in the future.

Of those ports with wirelessnetworks already up and running,around 60% allowed seafarers ac-cess to the network, with 38% ofthose doing so without charge.

The main reason cited for

enue from port WiFi andWiMAX.

Other reasons offered for alack of access included problemsfinding a commercial partner toprovide a WiMAX signal, as well asfears that port-wide wirelessthreatens the viability of existingwelfare organisations. This latteraspect was explained either interms of the technology discourag-ing seafarers from using seafarercentres, or in terms of welfareworkers selling seafarers fewerphone cards.

The research found that anumber of welfare organisationsviewed technology such as WiMAXas providing an opportunity to bet-ter meet the needs of seafarers. Ev-idence that port-wide wirelesstechnology can add to rather thanthreaten welfare organisations’ rev-enue were also identified.

In ports with existing port-wide WiFi or WiMAX, the researchidentified issues relating to i) therange and reliability of signalstrength and ii) seafarers’ access tothe hardware required to connect

Making a port call

CREW WELFARE

crewnew.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:36 Page 12

to port-wide wireless networks,which both affected seafarers’ abil-ity to make use of this technology.

WiFi has a smaller range, re-quires cable to pipe data to a cen-tral switch to the outside world,but off-the-shelf components re-duce its cost. WiMAX on theother hand has a much extendedrange, the local receivers can actas transmitters (obviating theneed to lay cable), but has higherupfront costs.

With regard to user-end hard-ware requirements, there are twocomponents that deserve consid-eration: firstly, seafarers withoutpersonal laptops are reliant uponlimited access to ship computers.Secondly, WiMAX networks typi-cally require a special adaptor –commonly referred to as dongle– for each computer that wantsto connect to the internet. Portagents in Singapore have takento distributing these to everyship that visits the port. But crewwelfare has always been takenvery seriously in the rich citystate; whether other ports wouldbe as generous is uncertain.

Overall, the research found anumber of practical impedi-ments to the proliferation ofport-wide wireless technologyand seafarers’ access to it, as wellas a ‘bottom line’ culture amongports in which the needs of sea-farers, while not disregarded,were peripheral to port opera-tions and planning.

The argument could also bemade that as more and more ves-sels are equipped with broadbandsatcoms, so the need for public in-frastructure diminishes. If a crewmember’s personal laptop is al-ready set-up to use their ship’s pri-vate on-board facilities, switchingto another network could proveinconvenient. Or they might pre-fer to use a separate local 3G don-gle. The options are manifold.

But unless ship owners and op-erators become more vocal in let-ting ports know they want theseWiFi or WiMAX services, ports willbe unable to gauge demand ormake investments decisions. As anIT manager at Associated BritishPorts put it: ‘We are not against it.It’s just never come up’.


CREW WELFARE

WHILE PRICES may have fallen over the years, making calls on a satphone is still ‒ rela-tively speaking ‒ an extravagance, particularly for the majority of crew manning theworldʼs merchant fleet. The keyword here is relativity. Call rates may have dropped, butthis has been against a backdrop of a general fall in the cost of communications precipi-tated by the emergence of new technologies. This has resulted in more choice for crew ‒why place a voice call if a text or email will suffice? ‒ and undercut the earning capacity oftraditional communication providers.

Earlier this year Vobal Technologies introduced its On-Net telephony service, designedto allow commercial ship owners or operators to replace conventional circuit-switchedvoice calls with unlimited VoIP enabled calling for a low, flat monthly fee. Vessels equippedwith Vobalʼs S3 Maritime GSM or S2 VoIP services can reduce their operational calling ratesfrom dollars, to cents, says the company, which recently celebrated becoming an InmarsatCertified Solutions Provider.

Vobal launched its S2 VoIP product with multi-voice capability in 2011 to meet grow-ing market demand for additional voice lines. This allows the vessel operator to segregatecalling for vessel operations from the personal requirements of crew.

ʻThe On-Net telephone service is a maritime communication industry first,ʼ claims JohnNix, the companyʼs founder and chief-executive. ʻAfter integrating the service into theircorporate telephone systems, placing a call to a vessels is as simple as dialling an officetelephone extension number.ʼ

Vobalʼs S2 and S3 products are designed specifically to work over Inmarsat FleetBroad-band, but are also compatible with other satellite services capable of providing a standardIP channel. They provide up to eight concurrent voice calls, unique international DID num-bers for each line, integration with vesselʼs switchboard or analogue phones and crew GSMmobile phones.

The S3 base station server establishes a self-contained 900Mhz GSM network that runson top of Vobalʼs VoIP transport network. Coverage typically extends 6-8 decks, so shouldprovide an adequate signal throughout the crew tower in most ships. Wider coverage canof course be arranged with the aid of additional hardware.

The S3 supports up to seven handsets talking simultaneously, though thereʼs no practi-cal limit on the number of handsets that can be attached to the network and send SMSmessages. A nice little side benefit is that crew can utilise the system for free internal callsand texts, ie to their colleagues working elsewhere aboard ship.

The smaller S2 VoIP server supports dedicated incoming and outbound lines for shipʼsbusiness and ʻopen phonesʼ, ie pre-paid PIN-based calling for crew, not unlike a pay phone.Up to two lines are available out of the box, though this can be expanded to eight.

ʻDespite all the advances in maritime communications, voice calls to Inmarsatʼs oceancode +870 numbers often cost several dollars per minute. Alternative single or two-stagedialling platforms require complicated dialling schemes and PIN codes, often with onlymarginal cost savings,ʼ comments company COO Ronnie Raviv, adding that On-Net is a lowcost means to overcoming those shortcomings.

Vobal prides itself on the exceptionally efficient bandwidth utilisation of its technol-ogy. From the outset the company recognised that out on the high seas bandwidth is aprecious commodity. The entire solution was designed from the ground up not to wastethis scarce resource.

Requiring only 6kbps fully loaded (ie voice plus overhead) means that it consumes lessthan 1Mb of data for 20mins of voice traffic. To date, the company has deployed its solu-tion on commercial merchant ships, offshore oilfield support vessels and even small cruiseships, where it is serving both crew and passengers.

Is VoIP about to come of age?

crewnew.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:36 Page 13

� Mapshowing therelative locationof vessels andicebergs inproximity to theTitanic

SAFETY


even a battery powered emer-gency transmitter. All this tech-nology guaranteed a daytimetransmission range of 250nm,but could reach as far as 2000nmat night.

At the time, most ships werefitted with a standard 1.5kW set.This typically offered a daytimetransmission range somewherebetween 70 and 300nm, accord-ing to the height, length andshape of the aerial, factors inturn determined by the dimen-sions of the ship. Again, consid-

The Titanic was kitted out with themost advanced radio equipment ofthe day, which played a pivotal roleafter disaster struck

Due to an unfortu-nate set of coinci-dences, combinedwith a failure to fol-

low protocol, the distress signalssent by the Titanic’s radio-officers(R/Os) after hitting an icebergon 14 April 1912 were not pickedup by the Californian, which wasonly a dozen or so miles fromwhere the tragedy struck. Merci-fully they were received by theCarpathia, which eventaullymanaged to rescue many of thesurvivors.

The ‘unsinkable’ Titanic wasequipped with a then state-of-the-art Marconi radio set: a ro-tary spark transmitter, poweredby a 5kw alternator that fed offthe ship’s lighting circuit, a fourwire antenna hoisted 250ft in theair between the ship’s masts, and

erably longer ranges were possi-ble at night, owing to morefavourable atmospheric condi-tions. The sets were designed tooperate on wavelengths of 300mand 600m, with a simple change-over mechanism; the receivingapparatus provided for tuned re-ception on all wavelengths be-tween 100 and 2500m.

DC power was obtained fromthe ship’s mains and led to a ‘ro-tary converter’, which suppliedalternating current to the termi-nals of the set. Emergency powerwas available from a batteryback-up in the event of the ship’ssupply failing.

Both Olympic and Titanicwere originally scheduled to re-ceive the standard 1.5kw appara-tus. However, just days beforeOlympic’s maiden voyage in June1911, Marconi’s new 5kw ‘plain-spark’ apparatus was deliveredand installed on board in ahastily-modified ‘Silent Room’.Titanic, several months in con-struction behind Olympic, hadthe luxury of a radio room laidout specifically for the 5kw appa-ratus. Furthermore, such was theprogress in finessing the technol-ogy, Titanic received the addi-tional benefit of a rotary sparkdischarger.

With more power to hand,Olympic’s transmitter range wasofficially listed at 350nm, whileTitanic’s range was listed at al-most double that, 650nm, thanksin large part to the musical noteof the ‘rotary spark’ apparatusenjoyed over that of the ‘roughspark’ produced by the plainspark apparatus.

In charge of all this equip-ment were the Titanic’s two radiooperators, John Phillips andHarold Bride, who while techni-

How wires crossedaboard the Titanic

Iceberg

safetytitanic.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 13:57 Page 14

both R/Os prepared for the dailyonslaught of passenger commu-nications directed to and fromADVISELUM, the wireless codeword assigned to Titanic for pas-senger’s personal traffic. Passen-gers sent their telegrams at theinquiry office, on the starboardside of the forward first class en-trance. The handwritten mes-sages were paid for at the desk,at the rate of 12 shillings and six-pence for the first 10 words, andnine pence per word thereafter.Even in 1912, this was a substan-tial sum, in today’s money (tak-ing into account inflation overthe years) equivalent to a con-nection charge of £48.30 and£2.90 per each additional word.However, it was not beyond thepurse of a first class passenger.

Telegrams were sent to theradio room by pneumatic tube.At the end of the day, a balancewas struck between the purser’s

clerk and the R/Os regarding thenumber of chargeable wordssent. Incoming passenger mes-sages were received by hand bythe duty R/O, and typed on atelegram form by the other R/O.Passenger traffic was sent fromthe radio room to the inquirydesk using the pneumatic tube.Messages concerning navigationor for the Captain were delivereddirectly to the bridge, or to hiscabin, down the starboard pas-sage of the officer's quarters

The two R/Os expected tospend most of their time sendingand receiving personal commu-nications from the wealthy pas-sengers. And, in fact, from theApril 12 sailing until the ship hitthe iceberg just past midnight onApril 15 they sent 250 such mes-sages.

Then, during the two hoursfrom the first distress call untilabandoning the radio room about

� The lastlifeboat to belaunched fromthe Titanic

� Left: A replica ofthe radioroomshowing keyapparatus

Right: Radiooperator HaroldBride was amongthe survivorspicked up by theCarparthia


SAFETY

cally employed by the MarconiCompany, in practice, receivedtheir pay-cheques from theWhite Star Line.

Phillips and Bride spent theday completing the installationand adjusting the equipment.They exchanged test calls withcoast stations at Malin Head,call-sign MH and Liverpool(known as ‘Seaforth’), call-signLV. Once the equipment was ad-justed and fully operational,Phillips and Bride exchangedmessages with coast stations atTenerife, 2000 miles away, andeven Port Said, more than 3000miles distant. By this stage the‘wireless’ was in almost constantuse, with sea trial reports flowingfrom Captain Smith to BruceIsmay, managing director atWhite Star’s company offices inLiverpool.

As the liner’s departurepreparations were completed,


hamburg

53° 33' 47'' N, 9° 58' 33'' E

facebook.com/SMMfair twitter.com/SMMfair youtube.com/SMMfair

keeping the course

hamburg4 – 7 sept 2012

16.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 10:16 Page 1


SAFETY

call CQ if the reception was poor.Arguably, the correspondingMorse code transliteration (· — · / — — · — / — · ·) was harder to memorise thanGermany’s more logical Notze-ichen distress signal of threedots, three dashes and three dots,ie SOS, which was rubber-stamped at the second Interna-tional RadiotelegraphicConvention, held in Berlin in1906. It follows therefore that‘Save Our Souls’ and other simi-lar creations can also be treatedas convenient backronyms.

three minutes before the vesselfoundered – even after being re-lieved from duty by Captain JackPhillips – the two R/Os sent 30-plus messages.

The first message sent at12:15am commenced with thecode CQD repeated six times, fol-lowed by the ship’s own call-signMGY repeated six times and fi-nally its long/lat. CQD was stillwidely used as a mayday call toall vessels, indicating the vesselsending was in distress and re-quired immediate assistance, al-though it had been alreadyofficially replaced by SOS.

Land telegraphs had tradi-tionally used ‘CQ’ (‘sécu’ of sécu-rité) to identify messages ofinterest to all stations along atelegraph line. Subsequently itwas adopted as a ‘general call’ formaritime radio use. Because inlandline usage there was no gen-eral emergency signal, the Mar-coni company added a ‘D’ tocreate a distress call. So, contraryto popular belief, it does notstand for ‘Come Quick, Drown-ing’ or variations thereof, whichcould be described as ‘backro-nyms.’

Although used worldwide byMarconi operators from February1904, CQD was never adopted asan international standard since itcould be mistaken for a general

But such was the dominanceof Marconi over the infant ma-rine radio industry, that evenwhen the new call came intoforce, many ships still used CQD– including Phillips on the Ti-tanic. It is reported that Bride,the junior radio operator, jok-ingly suggested the new codeSOS be used, thinking it might bethe only time he would get touse it; Phillips began to alternate.The pair remained at their postseven after being relieved fromtheir duties by the Captain untilthe ship’s generator failed andthey could no longer transmit.

While the messages werepicked up as far away as Italy,they were not heard by the Cali-fornian, which was nearest —said to be between 4 and 20miles away. This was becausethe lone radio operator has shutdown his operations and gone offduty half an hour before Phillipsstarted sending distress signals.It is probable that the Californiancould have responded muchsooner than the Carpathia, whicharrived at the scene 4-hourslater: too late to save the 1500who perished but in time to res-cue those who had survived thenight in lifeboats.

This unfortunate twist of fateled to the introduction of theRadio Act of 1912 requiring twooperators and a 24-hour radiowatch on all ships.

� Circuitdiagram of theTitanic's Marconiradio

AT 7.50PM on the night of 14 April 1912, the Mesaba of the Atlantic Transport Line sent the follow-ing telegram to the Titanic: ʻIn lat 42N to 41.25N long 49W to long 50.30W saw much heavy packice and great number of large icebergs also field ice. Weather good, clear.ʼ

This telegram gave precise details of the massive ice-field already in the path of the ship. How-ever, the surviving officers of the Titanic claimed that they had never seen the signal. Various theo-ries have been advanced over the years as to why this oversight occurred.

One suggestion was that as Titanic had come within range of Cape Race coast station, theshipʼs R/O John Phillips was attempting to clear a backlog of telegrams for the United States andthis warning was overlooked.

A study of the ice warnings received by the ship indicated that with this one exception all hadbeen personally acknowledged by the shipʼs Captain, as required by the regulations of the day. It isconjectured that Mesabaʼs R/O had for some reason failed to follow protocol, which stipulated thatice warnings should open with the MSG prefix. Instead he substituted the words ʻice reportʼ.

MSG was a special code alerting the receiving R/O to messages for the attention of the vesselʼsCaptain. There is little doubt that an experienced operator like Philips would have immediately for-warded the communication on to the bridge had this protocol been followed, and in doing so per-haps have averted the subsequent disaster.

404: Ice warning not found


SAFETY


Despite a greatly im-proved safety recordin the century sinceTitanic, the maritime

industry faces new challengesdriven by the continued growthof worldwide shipping, specialistmarine insurer Allianz GlobalCorporate & Specialty (AGCS)has advised.

Over the last 100 years, theworld commercial shipping fleethas trebled to over 100,000 ves-sels, yet overall shipping lossrates have declined from oneship per 100 per year in 1912 toone ship per 670 per year in2009.

While factors such as new tech-nologies and regulation havetremendously improved marinesafety, new risks have emerged.AGCS’s report, ‘Safety and Ship-ping 1912-2012: From Titanic toCosta Concordia’, based on researchfrom Cardiff University’s Seafarers’International Research Centre(SIRC), highlights several key chal-lenges for the industry. These in-clude the growing trend for‘super-size’ ships and cost pres-sures pushing ship-owners tosource crews from emergingeconomies where standards oftraining and assessment can be in-consistent.

Other significant safety risksinclude reduced crewing num-bers, which may compromisemargins of safety and encourage‘human error’ risks; increasingbureaucracy on board ships; thecontinued threat of piracy off So-malia and elsewhere; and theemergence of ice shipping andits associated navigational andenvironmental complications.

Commenting on the findingsof the report, Dr Sven Gerhard,AGCS’s Global Product Leader

The global fleet has trebled in size since the time of the Titanicand thankfully losses are following a downward trend. Howeverit still takes a disaster to bring about real improvements in safety

A century on, shippingfaces new safety risks

Strategic Passages and Regional Losses (Loss Dates 2001-2011)

Source: Dr Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra UniversitySource of loss data: Lloydʼs List Intelligence World Fleet Update


alysts for key changes: for exam-ple, the 1914 SOLAS conventionwas triggered by the loss of theTitanic, and included regulationsfor ice navigation and life-savingequipment while the Herald ofFree Enterprise disaster in 1987spurred on the adoption of theInternational Safety Manage-ment code, which the IMOadopted in 1993 and which hasdone much to improve bestsafety practice.

‘Historically, high profileshipping disasters have led to im-provements in marine safety.And Costa Concordia is certain tobe no different, whatever the re-sult of the official investigationsinto this cause will be’, says Dr


SAFETY

Hull & Marine Liabilities, says:‘While the seas are safer thanever today, the industry needs toaddress these new risks proac-tively. For example, ultra-largeships pose challenges for insurersdue to their sheer size and value,while others raise concerns onstructural integrity and failure.While scale alone does not makethese ships riskier, the increasedsizes introduce specific risks thatneed to be addressed, such as sal-vage and recovery considerationsand emergency handling.’

Weakest linkThe report also highlights thecontinued challenge of humanerror in maritime operations – afactor which remains critical de-spite a hundred years of techno-logical and regulatoryimprovements in safety. Over75% of marine losses can be at-tributed to a wide range of‘human error’ factors, includingfatigue, inadequate risk manage-ment and competitive pressures,as well as potential deficienciesin training and crewing levels.

Dr Gerhard explains: ‘As tech-nological improvements reducerisk, so the weakest link in thesystem – the human factor – be-comes more important. This iswhere the industry should focusmost closely, so that best practicerisk management and a cultureof safety becomes second natureacross the world fleet.’

Catalytic disasterWhile technologies such as radarand GPS have driven improvedsafety, it has often been majoraccidents that have been the cat-

Since 1912, world fleet tonnage has increased by a factor of 23 and now approaches one billiongross tons (2010).

World seaborne trade has trebled since 1970 to over 8.4 billion tons of cargo loaded per annum.

Cruise passenger numbers have shown significant growth in recent years, and are forecast togrow by 7.4% year on year from 1990-2015. It is estimated that in 2015, over 22 million passen-gers will be carried on cruise vessels worldwide (2011: 19.2 million).

Marine transport is one of the safest means of passenger transport overall with far lower fatalaccident rates than driving, cycling or walking in Europe.

Professional seafarer fatality rates have fallen in many countries: for example, in the UK, in 1919it was estimated that there would be 358 fatal accidents for every 100,000 seafarer years spent ʻatriskʼ ‒ a rate which had fallen to 11 by the period 1996-2005. However, this fatality rate is still 12times higher than in the general workforce.

Accident ʻblack spotsʼ include South China, Indo-China, Indonesia and Philippines with 17% oflosses in 2001-2011, followed by East Mediterranean and Black Sea (13%), and Japan, Korea and NorthChina (12%). The seas around the British Isles also show relatively high loss concentrations (8%).

Safety in shipping 1912-2012

Source of loss data: Lloydʼs List Intelligence World Fleet Update

World fleet size by numberof ships:1900-2010


SAFETY


keepers remained undisturbed intheir off-watch rest periods, thenumber of occurrences of sleepingon watch for officers on the 6/6pattern varied, and was up to morethan 20% on the 1800-0000 watch

such incidents of sleeping onwatch were found within bothwatchkeeping patterns, and theymainly occurred during nightand early morning watches

participants in all the groupsreported relatively high levels ofsubjective sleepiness on the KSSscale, which got higher towardsthe end of a watch and the endof the week

varying degrees of sleep losswere observed between thewatch systems and depending onwhether off-watch periods weredisturbed or not. Overall sleepduration for those on the 4/8 pat-tern was found to be relativelynormal, with around 7.5 hours aday for those in team 1 atChalmers and about 6 hours forteam 2

participants working 6/6watches were found to getmarkedly less sleep than thoseon 4/8, and data showed a clear‘split’ sleeping pattern in whichdaily sleep on the 6/6 patternwas divided into two periods --one of between three to fourhours and the other averagingbetween two to three hours

Major advances in the scientificunderstanding of the way in whichwatchkeeping patterns can affect thesleepiness levels of shipsʼ officers havebeen made by a 32-month researchprogramme

Project Horizonbrought academic in-stitutions and ship-ping industry

organisations together, with spe-cialist input from some world-leading transport and stressresearch experts. The elevenpartners made pioneering use ofbridge, engine room and cargosimulators to assess scientificallythe impact of fatigue in realisticseagoing scenarios.

A total of 90 experienceddeck and engineer officer volun-teers participated in rigoroustests at Chalmers University ofTechnology in Göteberg and atWarsash Maritime Academy atSouthampton Solent Universityto measure their levels of sleepi-ness and performance during themost common watch keepingpatterns – four hours on/eighthours off (4/8) and six hourson/six hours off (6/6). Some vol-unteers were also exposed to a‘disturbed’ off-watch period, re-flecting the way in which seafar-ers may experience additionalworkloads as a result of port vis-its, bad weather or emergencies.

The EU part-funded projectprovided detailed empirical dataon the sleepiness levels of watchkeepers working within those re-alistic scenarios, enabling re-searchers to analyse the impactof sleepiness on decision-mak-ing, reaction times and other keyelements of performance. Keyfindings include:

at least one occurrence ofsleep was detected among 45%of officers in the 6/6 team work-ing the 0000-0600hrs watch atChalmers and one occurrence forabout 40% of those on the 0000-0400 watch in the 4/8 pattern

at Warsash, where the watch-

reaction time tests, carriedout at the start and end of eachwatch, showed clear evidence ofperformance deterioration – andthe slowest reaction times werefound at the end of nightwatches and among those on the6/6 patterns

watchkeepers were found tobe most tired at night and in theafternoon and sleepiness levelswere found to peak towards theend of night watches

the 6/6 regime was found tobe more tiring than the 4/8 rotasand ‘disturbed’ off-watch periodswere found to produce signifi-cantly high levels of tiredness

in both watch systems, thedisturbed off-watch period wasfound to have a profound effectupon levels of sleepiness

there was evidence that rou-tine and procedural tasks couldbe carried out with little or nodegradation, whilst participantsappeared to find it harder to dealwith novel ‘events’, such as colli-sion avoidance or fault diagnosis,as the ‘voyages’ progressed

researchers also noted a de-cline in the quality of the infor-mation being given byparticipants at watch handoversas the week progressed

Researchers went on to usethe data to develop a new fatiguemanagement toolkit for use byship owners and managers, sea-farers, regulators and others, tohelp arrange working schedulesto mitigate risks to ships andtheir cargoes, seafarers, passen-gers and the marine environ-ment.

Known as Martha, the ‘mar-itime alertness regulation toolkit’was developed as a spin-off froma similar system already em-ployed in the aviation industry,

Brain probes used inbattle against fatigue

safetyfat.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:41 Page 20

traffic to avoid collision, for exam-ple, can be nerve-wracking andsometimes dangerous.

At its heart BAMS interfacesto all relevant bridge systems, ei-ther through serial inputs usingthe NMEA protocol or throughhardwired (binary) signals, con-tinually pulling in data on theiroperational status. It then pres-ents this information in a singleconsolidated display on a touchscreen monitor. This approach,says Totem, makes it easier fordeck officers to quickly identifyfaulty systems and silence the as-sociated audible alarms.

The information can also flowin the reverse direction. BAMScan be integrated with a BNWAS,so that unanswered alarms can berelayed as a second stage BNWASalarm. The transfer will takeplace after a pre-determineddelay time, adjustable separatelyfor each system. Such transfer isimperative with failure of major

Totem Plus has devel-oped a Bridge AlertManagement System(BAMS), which should

allow the source of an alarm to bemore quickly identified and ac-knowledged, thereby reducingthe number of distractions divert-ing deck officers’ attention frommore pressing matters.

The complexity of modernnavigational bridge layouts andthe large number of comput-erised systems on such bridges isa well-known fact. Consequently,alarms or messages from varioussources compete for attention,immediate response and ac-knowledgement. Those sourcesare frequently at different loca-tions across the bridge.

Such alarms can be a majordistracting factor when the navi-gator has to concentrate on im-portant safety tasks. The rush tosilence a buzzer of a faulty speedlog while trying to concentrate on

navigation equipment such as au-topilot, gyro, navigation lightsamong others.

In addition to the core func-tionalities described above, BAMSkeeps a one year log of all systemevents and activity. When re-quired, the aggregated log file canbe downloaded on to externalmedia via USB. The user can fil-ter what data is transferred acrossin any number of ways. For exam-ple, all alerts referring to onesource only, all pending alarms ofall systems, all the events in acertain period, configurationchanges etc.

BAMS has three modes of op-eration: sea mode (default), silentmode (no audible alarms) or an-chor mode (alert if positiondrifted). The system is type ap-proved by GL, is in accordancewith latest IMO resolutions andcan be installed on any type ofvessel.

� An engineerofficer carries outhis duties on asimulator, whileEEG sensorsrecord brainactivity


SAFETY

planning the size and compe-tence of the crew. It could alsobe used for drawing up an im-proved ISM plan or even for in-surance/classification purposes.

Project coordinator GrahamClarke commented: ‘Seafarer fa-tigue is one of the biggest safetyissues in the shipping industry,and this research has taken ourunderstanding of the way inwhich the quality of sleep off-

watch affects the sleepiness ofwatchkeepers on watch to a newand much deeper level.

‘It is hoped that the fatiguemanagement toolkit will be alasting legacy for the sector, pro-viding a resource that, by estab-lishing improved workingpatterns, will help to enhancethe safety of ships and passen-gers, and the welfare of seafar-ers,’ he added.

which uses mathematical modelsto predict alertness and perform-ance over set periods. Usersinput their watch schedules overa six-week timeframe and thesoftware will predict and displayits estimates of the time of high-est potential sleepiness for eachwatch, as well as for time outsidewatch duty.

Researchers hope shippingcompanies will adopt Martha for

Totem brings attention seeking alarms under control

safetyfat.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:41 Page 21

NEWS FOCUS


from the offshore energy industry,which needed cables that couldcope with the extreme cold condi-tions frequently encountered inexploration, extraction and trans-portation projects taking place inArctic waters. In Russia, for exam-ple, the resultant cables went onto help ice-protect the Prirazlom-naya stationary oil platform in theBarents Sea.

The defining characteristic ofIceFlex is its ability to remain flexi-ble in temperatures as low as -50°C, thanks to its halogen-freerubber-based sheathing com-pound. According to Nexans, it alsooffers good mechanical properties,flame retardancy, low toxicity,mineral oil and weathering resist-ance, and thermal stability. Thecompany has gone on to apply Ice-Flex to its ShipLink cables for shipsoperating in icy waters.

The centre has produced ‘mudresistant’ cables designed to with-stand exposure to the drilling flu-ids used in many offshore

projects. The cleverly engineeredsheathing complies with the newNEK606 standard, which stipulatesoil resistance in IRM903 for oneweek at 100°C and resistance oil-based Carbosea and water-basedcalcium bromide brine drilling flu-ids for up to 56 days at 70°C.

In the smart LANmarkcabling system, theouter sheath can

Original and inventive thinking iscalled for when designing cables thatcan tolerate the extreme conditionsoften encountered in the maritimeindustry

Specialist cable man-ufacturer Nexans iscelebrating a decadeof innovation at its

Lyon-based research facility.While cables often become invis-ible and forgotten about, eventhe most sophisticated and intel-ligent control systems are de-pendent upon them relayingdata to/from the external envi-ronment. And when it comes tomaritime applications that exter-nal environment is unlikely to bea comfortable air-conditioned of-fice building. Instead, cables foruse at sea must be engineered towithstand extreme temperatures,pressures and a variety of otherharsh conditions.

Since its founding in 2000,Nexans has carved out a niche indeveloping and supplying cablescapable of withstanding exactlythese unforgiving environments.Pivotal in its success has beenthe company’s focus on R&D ac-tivities. The company opened itsfirst research centre in Lyon,France in 2002. It has since es-tablished a network of sister fa-cilities in Nuremberg, Germany;Lens, France; and Jincheon,South Korea.

Together, over 600 researchers,engineers and technicians bring tomarket, on average, two new prod-ucts a week. Highlights in themaritime sector include a cold-re-sistant cable, a mud-resistant LANcable and fire-resistant dual-role data/power cable.

The developmentof IceFlex was pre-cipitated bydemand

be removed when the cable pen-etrates areas where fire resist-ance is necessary. Nexans listshigher bandwidth, EMC compli-ance, and easy ‘stripability’among its other notable charac-teristics. For power cables, theresearch centre developed mate-rials that meet cold impact andcold bend requirements down to-40°C.

Nexans has addressed firesafety within the shipping sectorby producing cables that meetIEC 60331-21 and 60331 (part 1and 2) fire safety standards. ItsINFIT insulating layer works byhardening into a ceramic layer tokeep current and data flowingduring a fire. The special insula-tion is available throughoutNexan’s ShipLink range.

Other innovations to emergefrom Lyon include high-perfor-mance cross-linked materials fre-quently used in cable systemsfor renewable energy applica-tions; reduced fire hazard cablesemploying halogen-free fire-re-tardant (HFFR) solutions withlow smoke emission for indoorapplications; energy-efficient de-signs minimising CO2 footprintand sustainable solutions usingeco-friendly raw materials andreducing material usage.

The Lyon research facility isfully equipped to manufacture and

test cable prototypes sothat development canbe speeded up and

time to market significantlyreduced. The team has developedpowerful computer simulationtools that allow the company todesign new cables more rapidlythan ever before. In addition, dedi-cated test centres evaluate productperformances under real-life con-ditions.

Nexans celebrates 10 years of innovation

� IceFlexretains its

flexibility down totemperatures as cold

as -40°C

� LANmarkʼsouter sheath canbe removed whenit penetrates areaswhere fireresistance isnecessary

cables.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 11:57 Page 22

MCP prepares for a mobile data tsunami

pending on future satellite band-width availability and costs, MCPis designing and operating themost modern networks availableat sea.

Last year the company intro-duced EDGE network technol-ogy, a more efficient 2G protocol.Retrofitting its total installationbase with the latest communica-tions software, MCP more thantripled the data capacity of eachship’s GSM/GPRS network, re-sulting in increased individualuser data rates, higher-speed mo-bile internet services over exist-ing infrastructure and additionalcapacity for still-expanding voicetraffic.

MCP confirms that its first

Cruise ship operators need to act nowto make sure their ships provideenough mobile coverage forincreasingly data-hungry passengers

It is estimated thatwithin the next fouryears, terrestrial wire-less carriers will need

to find a way to transmit morethan 30 times the volume of datatheir networks carry today. Theyare taking steps to contend witha veritable data tsunami. But partof this tsunami will wash againstthe shores of the maritime sectorand in particular the cruise in-dustry.

‘Cruise companies have toget ready for the next wave.They have to upgrade on boardcommunication systems withhighly efficient wireless base sta-tions and make gigabyte, not justmegabyte, bandwidth invest-ments,’ warns Roar Walderhaug.

Of course, he would say thatin his position as VP for corpo-rate communications at MCP, acompany that has established it-self as the dominant provider ofon-board mobile connectivity forpassengers (and crew) on cruiseships and ferries. Nevertheless, itis clear that today’s mobile de-vices are used for considerablymore than basic voice services.In fact, for many, actually plac-ing calls has switched from beinga core to a peripheral function.

‘The mobile device is one ofthe most important devices weown. Cruise companies need tothink beyond current cellularboundaries and examine how in-formation flows over wirelessnetworks. They have to thinkabout upgrading control servers,about compressing and networkconfiguration to optimise datatraffic through satellite transfer,’continues Walderhaug.

Though a migration to full3G and LTE (the next level upfrom 3G) data speeds on shipsmay still be a little way off, de-

3G-vessel project, to be finalisedin August this year, is beingdriven by passenger use of socialmedia applications such asYouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Cruise and ferry operatorsmust keep ahead of the curve tomaintain and increase revenuesgenerated by on-board communi-cation, says Walderhaug. ‘Withour 3G strategy in place, we canupgrade a ship’s network to han-dle fast 3G connections, com-plete with micro-browsers,widgets and quick launch icons.

Between 2008 and 2011, MCPhas measured 24% yearly growthin the use of its digital wirelessservice CellAtSea. But in 2011, itexperienced an average of 180%increase in data traffic withrecord passenger and crew use ofmobile internet and smart phoneservices.

NEWS FOCUS

2009Explosive mobile growth4.7 billion subscribers worldwide

5.3 trillion textmessages sentannually

10.6 trillion minutes ofvoice calls made annually

2010The data tsunami3 million TB ofdata transmittedover the airglobally


� The graphic showsgrowth in global mobiledata in the terrestrialenvironment

cables.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 11:57 Page 23

� Beijercreates user-interface panelsfor a variety ofmarineapplications

DISPLAYS


control systems also facilitate op-eration and maintenance by thecrew, including lubrication of theengines.

At sea, reliability takes thehighest priority. Downtime costsbig money. To prevent and avoidproblems, the engine control sys-tem consists entirely of carefullyselected, high-quality electroniccomponents such as computers.Vital functions are also dupli-cated.

Robust industrial computersfrom Beijer Electronics havebeen used in the onboard sys-tems since last summer. In thefirst six months or so since deliv-eries started, around 150 com-puters from the EPC series havebeen commissioned, ‘without asingle complaint,’ stresses Ken-net Palm, who is responsible forall the hardware used in the con-trol electronics at MAN Diesel &Turbo,

Software failure is not an option whenit comes to designing andconstructing the electronic operatorinterfaces that control the worldʼslargest ship engines

It almost goes withoutsaying that the com-puters that serve asthe human machine

interface (HMI) to the engineson board ships have to be ex-tremely reliable. For one thing,they are responsible for control-ling some enormous forces. Theengines under their commandmay output up to 115,000 horse-power and weigh up to 2000tons. For another, they must becapable of withstanding the bigvariations in temperature, vibra-tion humidity and dust, whichare frequently experienced inthe engine room environment.

It is no accident that MANDiesel & Turbo uses industrialcomputers from Beijer Electron-ics as the HMI for its giant B&Wengines. The choice was basedon a very thorough evaluationand negotiation process, inwhich suppliers from all over theworld were compared againsteach other. On board ships, relia-bility is absolutely crucial, so allcomponents in the redundantcontrol system have to be of thehighest quality.

A large proportion of allships plying the oceans are pro-pelled by MAN Diesel & Turbo.In recent years, demand forelectronically controlled B&Wtwo-stroke diesels has risensharply. Advanced control sys-tems that manage fuel injectionand compression contribute tobetter fuel economy and re-duced emissions.

With the progressive tighten-ing of environmental require-ments, ship owners are alsoincreasingly interested in retro-fitting electronic control in exist-ing vessels. As a bonus, modern

Tough jobsThe industrial computers thatBeijer Electronics supplies toMAN Diesel & Turbo for its en-gine control systems are any-thing but throwaway devices.These EPC boxes are speciallydesigned and made for maxi-mum reliability in demandingenvironments.

Consumer PC buyers aremainly concerned with perform-ance and low price. The occa-sional ‘blue screen of death’ maybe irritating, but it is not a majorproblem. It is quite different atsea – particularly on a big tankerhundreds or thousands of milesfrom port. So when MAN Diesel& Turbo chooses components forits electronic control systems, re-liability combined with a longservice life is crucial.

‘We build engines with a life-time of 30 years, which have towork day in, day out in a toughmaritime environment with allthat this implies in terms of heat,humidity and vibration,’ explainsKennet Palm, adding that ofcourse factors like purchase costand warranties are not irrelevanteither.

Crash-proofing shipengine controllers

displays.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:10 Page 24

‘Among the formal require-ments, the products have to betype-approved by the leadingmaritime classification associa-tions,’ says Niels Torres Engel, ex-plaining that, after thepreliminary screening, the differ-ent computers are installed intest beds to confirm their com-patibility, performance and qual-ity.

Harsh environmentIn the engine room of a ship, itcan get really hot. That is whychecks are made to ensure thatthe computers will still work in70°C temperatures. The EPCboxes from Beijer Electronicsmet this challenge – as well asthe related vibration and humid-ity tests. ‘By stressing the prod-ucts, we pick up faults that mightnot initially show up,’ saysLehnemann.

It is also crucial, he adds, thatmanufacturers do not make anysudden design modifications, aseven seemingly minor changesto components can impact onthe programs running in thecomputer. ‘We perform constant

spot-checks to ensure that theequipment supplied is up to themark, and we are in constantcontact with our partners,’ hesays.

The partnership with BeijerElectronics is described as re-laxed and personal. As KennetPalm says, if communicationwith the suppliers isn’t working,it doesn’t matter how good theproducts are: ‘We feel that ourwishes are listened to and we getall the help we need.’

Niels Torres Engel agrees. Hefreely admits that MAN Diesel &Turbo could be described as a‘difficult’ customer: ‘Althoughwe're not buying vast quantitiesof industrial computers, we areextremely fussy about the qual-ity of what we get.’

This close dialogue betweenBeijer and MAN has brought im-provements in the onboard sys-tems, which also increasessafety. If a control computershould fail – against all the odds– the crew on board can re-installthe operating system and pro-grams. This backup copy used tobe held on a CD, but unfortu-nately the mechanisms in theCD drives could not always copewith the vibration they were ex-posed to. The EPC boxes intro-duced the idea of restoring froma USB stick, a much more robustsolution.

� The controlsystem managesfuel injection andcompression,which contributeto better fueleconomy andreducedemissions


DISPLAYS

Reliable suppliesA secure supply of products andspare parts, with just-in-time de-livery, is equally high on the listas quality: ‘To guarantee the sup-ply of components, we made adecision at the group level tohave two, or preferably three, al-ternative sources for every keyproduct that we need.’

Kennet Palm and his col-leagues leave no stone unturnedin their efforts to identify thebest and most reliable productson the market. They search theworld for computers, screens andother hardware for the controlsystem.

The adoption of Beijer Elec-tronics as one of very few PCsuppliers to MAN Diesel & Turbodid not happen overnight. TheEPC boxes were tested methodi-cally and very thoroughly over along period. Niels Torres Engeland Thomas Lehnemann, whoare responsible for research andreliability, leave nothing tochance. For their rigorous test-ing, they have a small ‘torturechamber’ at their disposal in thecompany’s R&D division.

The Beijer Electronics EPC box is a robust, maintenance-free and well-protected industrial computer for toughenvironments. It is built around Intel processors withWindows XP Embedded. Fanless processors keep thetemperature down and reduce wear. It is IP20-ratedaccording to DIN EN 60529.

Parallel and serial ports are standard, along with USB 2.0sockets and 100 Mbps Ethernet. MAN Diesel & Turbo haschosen flash disk for data storage. The alternative is atraditional vibration-tolerant hard disk.

Beijer Electronicsʼ EPC series is certified by ABS, BureauVeritas, DNV, Germanischer Lloyd, Lloydʼs Register and theRussian Maritime Register of Shipping.

The technology in brief

displays.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:10 Page 25


with at least one, probably twoand possibly up to three replace-ment cycles during a vessel’s life-time. Would, given the choice,owners prefer hardened hardwarewhich they could fit once and for-get? Is the onus on manufacturersto devise more resilient designs?Or is it more cost-effective to treatmonitors as a consumable and re-place when required?

A fair number of CRTs canstill be found operating in theglobal fleet. Even if the screenhas deteriorated to 25% of itsoriginal brightness, as long as theCaptain is happy he can see whathe needs on the display there isno reason compelling an upgradeto newer technologies.

For navigation purposes, thecritical factor is colour calibra-tion. And a reduction in bright-

Ships are becomingincreasingly relianton advanced elec-tronics in their day-

to-day operation. The mostvisible manifestation of thistrend are the banks of monitorsfound on the bridge of a modernship serving up a cornucopia ofnavigational information. Downbelow too, it is not unusual forengine control rooms to be fittedout with screens displayingcountless operational parametersrelating to power generation andpropulsion efficiency.

So it is somewhat ironic thatthe monitors responsible for pre-senting all this information arevirtually invisible. Of course, thatthey are taken for granted is a tes-tament to their reliability. But thefact remains monitors have a sig-nificantly shorter lifetime thanthe vessels they serve upon. Old-fashioned cathode ray tube (CRT)displays were typically built to last80,000 hours, which approximatesto 10 years usage. Newer flat-screen LCD displays have a stillshorter design life, generallyspeaking, in the order of 5-6 years.

This means ship owners ormanagers will have to contend

ness has little impact on this.Furthermore colour calibration isonly measured when a manufac-turer is getting type-approval fora display. It is not subject to re-testing after it has been installedand the ship is in service. Whatis forcing ships to ditch CRTs andupgrade to newer flat-screenpanels is a general lack of spare-parts for traditional tube dis-plays. Specialist manufacturersserving the maritime sector, suchas North Invent, are reporting ahealthy level of sales in theretrofit market.

The durability of a TFT dis-play panel will vary according towhether it is intended for an in-dustrial or consumer specifica-tion. Consumer-orientedproducts assume an eight-hour/day profile, while indus-trial grade products are typicallybuilt to operate around the clock.

TFT monitors that use a fluo-rescent lighting (CCFL) tube fora backlight have an average life-expectancy of 30-40 000 hoursuntil they reach their brightnesshalf-life. Back of the envelopecalculations show this equates tobetween 5-7 years usage, depend-ing on the operational profile. Of

The light that burns twice as brightburns half as long. Dr Eldon Tyrellʼs quipon the longevity of Replicants inBladerunner applies equally well tolatest generation of monitors, which areunlikely to last the lifetime of a vessel

DISPLAYS

displays2.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:13 Page 26

Something that might be-come an issue is the amount ofheat that LED displays generate,which has to be circulated out ofthe device. ‘It is plausible thatflaws in the cooling circuit willlead to hotspots,’ conjectures Ref-sgaard. ‘But there is still insuffi-cient experience to tell forcertain. Everybody’s hope isLEDs will deliver a more uni-form light output over the lifes-pan of the unit.’

LED monitors have alreadymade their way aboard ships’bridges. They meet all the condi-tions required for approval. The23-inch, which is the de facto stan-dard for today’s ECDIS and radarsystems, tend to be LEDs. Thetechnology will migrate into othersizes over the next 3-5 years.

OLED displays are starting tomigrate from consumer-space toindustry applications, whichmight yet prove a welcome devel-opment for bridge officers. ‘Thereare two aspects that are of inter-est for navigation applications:one is light-level and the other iscontrast ratio. It is important tobe able to distinguish betweendifferent colours, especiallywhen you sail a ship at night inlow light conditions. OLED areself-illuminated panels, so theyought to have high colour con-trast in low ambient light condi-tions,’ explains Refsgaard.

However, certain adaptationswill probably be required to sat-isfy the approval bodies. ‘Whenwe went from CRT to TFT, all thenavigation systems had to con-trol the back-light through the se-rial communication protocol. Inother words, it is software con-trolled. This is in contrast to theold CRT tube, where you justtwizzled the knob to turn downthe brightness. It was a hard-ware-based analogue control thatdirectly reduced the number ofelectrons firing onto the phos-phor. OLEDs see a return to CRT-style way of working.’

A challenge facing manufac-turers building displays for ma-rine applications is that there isno standalone type-approvalprocess. Instead, a display will beassessed together with the host

ECDIS or radar system as a com-bined package. According to Refs-gaard, the certificate of approvalthat is subsequently issued willthen apply to only that specificcombination of equipment.

The upshot is that it is notpossible to swap in another mon-itor, without jeopardising the ap-proval. ‘This can cause problemsif a ship comes into port needinga replacement screen and thesame model is not available,even if a functionally equivalentunit is,’ says Refsgaard. With ahint of resignation, he adds: ‘Butthe situation has been like thisfor the last two decades. Themonitor is regarded as a compo-nent of a larger system ratherthan a discrete product in itsown right. It makes life difficultfor us as manufacturers and op-erators looking to maintain theirvessel.’


DISPLAYS

course, if display brightness isnot an issue, there is no reasonthey cannot be used longer. Butthe component that is most sus-ceptible to age-induced failure isthe high-voltage circuitry thatpowers the backlight. And, unfor-tunately, when it comes to high-voltage systems, ageing isinevitable.

It is difficult to comment onthe ageing process for LED dis-plays. ‘They are still a youngtechnology. No-one really has 10years’ experience of them yet.The research done so far suggeststhat they will maintain a higherquality picture and higher bright-ness levels for longer than anequivalent TFT unit.’

For one thing, LED displaysdo not require the CCFL tube thatproduces the backlight in conven-tional TFT displays; instead thelight is produced directly fromthe LEDs mounted on the circuitboard. ‘CCFL tubes are madefrom glass and therefore are themost fragile component in thedisplay,’ says Søren Refsgaard, in-ternational sales manager atNorth Invent. That said, he hasnever heard of any instances ofbroken tubes in the wild.

VARIED LIGHT conditions are always a factor in marine ap-plications. Reflections too are a common problem. Naturalor artificial sources of light are refracted by the protectivebezel of the monitor, resulting in a poor contrast image thatcan make it hard to discern subtle elements being dis-played. In the context of navigation, this could have safetyimplications.

German manufacturer Baytek states solving this prob-lem requires taking into consideration two physical phe-nomena. Firstly, due to the tiny air gap between the bezeland the actual LCD display, reflections from the varioussources of light interfere with the contrast. Secondly, theconsistency of the glass and air is different, and air conductslight.

As a result, each source of light is reflected three times:at the outward surface of the front glass; at the inward sur-face of the front glass; and finally, at the front of the actualLCD display. Each of these sources of interference has an av-erage reflection rate of 5%. In total, these sources of interfer-ence add up to a reflection rate of 15%, making it nearlyimpossible to read the monitor in bright light.

To overcome this, Baytek has switched to a bonded dis-play manufacturing process for its BPM and BQM monitors,which ensures there is no air between the display and theglass bezel. This additional effort can reduce optical aberra-tions and reflections to as little as 0.2%.

These monitors provide the viewer with a detailed high-contrast image, even in very challenging and bright ambientlight conditions. They are designed to be fully readable in di-rect sunlight without increasing the power requirements.

Bonded display reduces reflections

� The information they presentmight be bright and clear, butmonitors themselves are virtuallyinvisible

displays2.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:13 Page 27

NAVIGATION


‘user’ is within the grandiosescale of the e-Navigation project.

Meanwhile, Andy Norris, vice-president of Royal Institute ofNavigation, took on the challengeof explaining the differences be-tween electronic navigation,which already exists in the formof ECDIS et al, and e-Navigation.This picked up on greater inter-communication between differentelements, whilst continuing toemploying existing standards. Hewent on to raise topics as diverseas data sources and integrity; theimpact of e-Navigation worksta-tions on bridge practices; the ben-efits of borrowing an ‘Apps’-likeapproach to the development of e-Navigation functionalities. He alsocommented on the challengesthat would be met introducing e-Navigation to new builds andretrofitting older vessels, notingthe disarray seen with ECDIS.

Freezing standardsRepresenting the voice of OEMs,Mike Rambaut, sec-gen of CIRM,explained the factors affectingwhat manufacturers choose tomake and the process by whichthey make their decisions. Hedrew attention to the role of stan-

In January, nearly 150 experts fromover 20 countries gathered aboardDFDSʼ Crown of Scandinavia to starthammering out the practical elementsof e-Navigation, while crossing thewaters from Copenhagen to Oslo andthen back again

The 2012 e-NavigationUnderway conference– subtitled From aBirdseye Perspective to

Practical Solutions – provided aplatform both to explore generaldevelopments and an opportu-nity to report back on a numberof test-bed projects.

Andreas Nordseth, directorgeneral, Danish Maritime Author-ity set the scene with an overviewof traffic in and out of the Baltic,noting the hazardous nature ofmuch of its cargo before refer-ence was made to the current fi-nancial state and the squeeze thatit is putting on the maritime in-dustry. The attraction of a routeopening to the Far East, aroundthe north of Russia, was set in thecontext of the consequences of in-cidents. He drilled home the factthat, in order for e-navigation tobe successful, solutions will needto be created in close partnershipwith industry.

Gary Prosser, Sec-Gen of In-ternational Association of MarineAids to Navigation and Light-house Authorities (IALA), whichorganised the event, used hiskeynote address to explainIALA’s involvement with e-Navi-gation and its relationship withIMO and association with the Ef-ficienSea project.

Gradually getting down tothe nitty-gritty, John Erik Hagen,chairman of the IMO e-Naviga-tion correspondence group,stressed the importance of taking‘user needs’ into account. Thisseemingly innocuous observa-tion later sparked a discussionon how ambiguous the term

dards and the impact of commit-tees whose job it is to devisethose standards. This led to com-ments on what were consideredto be basic steps in the imple-mentation of e-Navigation and aplea to freeze standards as soonas possible. In short, ‘tell us whatyou want and we will build it’.

Speaking on behalf of the In-ternational Chamber of Shipping,John Murray also thought itwould be instructive to considerECDIS as an example of how notto proceed, with particular refer-ence to ensuring competence. Hehighlighted the conflicts thatarose between the pace of techno-logical development and the es-tablished regulatory process andappealed to delegates to take end-user training into proper consid-eration. He hopes that theautomation, harmonisation andintegration promised by e-Naviga-tion will ensure that training addi-tional to that already requiredunder STCW is unnecessary.

Bill Cairns, chairman of theIALA e-NAV Committee de-scribed the responsibilities andagendas of the Committee’s vari-ous Working Groups, before ex-plaining the importance of theforthcoming IHO/IALA meetingwhere IALA would become a do-main holder under IHO’s S-100GI Registry.

The Nautical Institute’srenowned director of projects,David Patraiko, spoke on thevital need to bring the human el-ement and user needs into e-Navigation. Over complexity, heimplored, must be avoided. Healso reviewed the training op-

navi.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:23 Page 28

The benefits and challenges ofusing PORTS was discussed, aswas the effect of the test bed pro-viding suspect information. Thereliability of AIS data and theneed to verify it was stated.

Enhanced radar positioningwas the subject matter of JensKristian Jensen, Danish MaritimeAuthority. After spelling out theimportance of resilient position,navigation and timing, Jensen de-scribed the concept behind radarpositioning. This led to an intro-duction of e-RACON and e-Radar;their current functionality; keyenabling technologies and test en-vironment. It was concluded au-tomatic position verification isrealistic but at least two RACONswith a suitable geometry areneeded to get good results.

Ulf Svedberg of the Swedish

Maritime Administration pre-sented on the topic of dynamicand proactive vessel routing andthe need for ‘sea traffic control’.Within the context of the MonaLisa project, he introduced the‘Green Routes’ concept explaininghow marine spatial planningcould save on aggregate fuel usage(thus reducing emissions). Thisled neatly to a discussion of Sys-tem Wide Information Manage-ment, hinting at the possibility fordynamic separation, as opposed tostatic separation. With ship’sroutes held centrally in a Sea Traf-fic Control system, assistance inavoiding congestion and ‘open seapilotage’ become possible.

A Canadian perspective camefrom Lee Alexander of the Uni-versity of New Hampshire, whodescribed a test-bed project onthe St Lawrence River focusingon the needs of pilots, while Ya-suyuki Niwa from the NationalMaritime Research Centre inJapan tackled the thorny subjectof usability evaluation of naviga-tional equipment.

Embarking on a journeyJeppesen’s Michael Bergmanopened with the philosophicalobservation that e-navigationshould be seen as a journey; nota destination. He went on tostress the material differencesbetween data and information, il-lustrating his point with an ex-ample from the aviation industrywhere the digitisation of data re-sult in much cleaner, de-clut-tered air chart. Bergman brieflydiscussed the process of collect-ing data to develop information,


NAVIGATION

tions and the value of mentoring,an idea that was picked up for in-clusion in upcoming test-bedprojects.

An IMO perspective wasbought to the table by GurpreetSinghota, deputy director, Mar-itime Safety Division. He toowarned that e-Navigation shouldbe fundamentally based arounduser needs and that over-relianceon technology should beavoided. The potential ship andshore-based users were pre-sented, which again showed howelastic the term ‘user’ needs tobe. Later, in sketching out thesteps made so far in the develop-ment of e-Navigation, specificmention was made of the use ofthe IHO’s S-100 standard. Thiswas followed by mention of fu-ture radio spectrum require-ments.

Test bed reports Jorge Viso of the American PilotsAssociation described theprogress made at the Tampa e-Navigation test bed, using dataprovided by NOAA. The aim is toreduce voice communicationsand improve navigation safetyand efficiency. PORTS, a real-time system to provide environ-mental data was described and itsbenefits for depth sensitive portoperations and the need to useslack water for difficult turns. Ac-cess to real-time meteorologicaldata has assisted in developingproducing procedures for themovement of cruise ships. Theinformation has been availablevia a website but is now availablevia ASMs and the pilot’s PPU.

WITH ALL the navigation related information that will beflying backwards and forwards between ships, shore-sideauthorities and other stakeholders, will it be necessary forships to have a statutory amount bandwidth onboard fortransmitting this data? At the moment, weʼre the not sure.Before a sensible proposal can be made, a better grasp isrequired of exactly what data needs to be sent from whereand to whom. Strategies for reducing duplication will alsoneed to be investigated. It is recognised that bandwidthdoes not come free. In this context, work on the e-Naviga-tion data model should prove invaluable. This topic is ex-pected to be raised at IMOʼs NAV58.

Does e-nav require aminimum bandwidth?


NAVIGATION

point of a view of a regulator,taking into account, amongstother factors, the current envis-aged workload on IMO and ad-ministrations. On his wishlist ofbenefits sought for both adminis-trations and ships were rationali-sation of ship reporting systemsand the use of S-Mode. Jensenwent on to review how e-Naviga-tion might interlock with existingstandards. He closed with a pleathat e-Navigation might reducethe increasing administrativeburden on today’s officers.

The concept of R-mode – re-

and the role, challenges and risksposed by data overlays.

The individuality of bridgesand information overload werethe keywords in the presentationby Florian Motz, Fraunhofer, In-stitute for Communication, Infor-mation Processing andErgonomics. Motz observed de-spite IMO performance stan-dards being in place no twoships’ bridges are ever the same.The presentation then turned tothe modular bridge concept, itsobjectives and function. The INSperformance standards were cov-ered, as were its key functions,namely: route monitoring, colli-sion avoidance, navigation con-trol data, alert management andstatus and data display. Motzwent on to consider the modularbridge as a fundamental compo-nent of e-Navigation.

Carsten Jensen from theDanish Maritime Authority con-sidered e-Navigation from the

dundant and resilient positioning– was proposed by MichaelHoppe of the German FederalWaterways and Shipping Admin-istration’s Traffic TechnologyCentre. After outlining the de-pendence of e-Navigation on anaccurate and reliable source ofpositioning data, Hoppe ex-plained the vulnerability of GNSSto naturally occurring, man-made and deliberate interfer-ence. He argued terrestrialradio-navigation systems andranging signals from MF radiobeacons and AIS all have a roleto play as back-up systems. Feasi-bility studies using prototype re-ceivers will be carried out as partof the ACCSEAS project.

It was up to Keith Oliver,Head of Operations at the UK’sMaritime & Coastguard Agency toshed some light on how e-Naviga-tion and search and rescue willcoalesce. Knowing what vesselsare nearby and their capabilities,together with local meteorologicaldata and currents (for estimatingdrift), could make a big differenceto the outcome of SAR missions.Reference was made to the auto-mated transmission of searcharea coverage plans by AIS,which can also be used to moni-tor execution of the plan. Turningto unregulated users, referencewas made to the variety of smallboat user equipment now avail-able, and the options and chal-lenges in connecting it alltogether. The growth in unregu-lated ‘Apps’ was shown to posedifficulties for shore authorities,particularly with false alarm gen-eration and charting.

* The conference was recorded in its entirety

and the presentations can be individually

viewed online at: www.efficiensea.org

� Navigationexperts gatheredaboard theCrown ofScandinavia


Regulation is necessary but it should be goal-based. More effective use of existing navigational aids can be made by their integration and har-

monisation, together with simplification of relevant rules and regulations. This process is al-ready underway.

The IMO INS performance standards should be used as the basis for the shipboard integra-tion of existing and future navigational aids, as a component of e-Navigation.

Initially, existing performance standards for navigational aids are most likely to be satisfac-tory in the e-Navigation context, as they already work with INS. Performance standards willneed to be refined and structured towards a modular concept to accommodate changes intechnology within an e-Navigation environment.

e-Navigation applications will be useful tool to support maritime spatial management andcoastal states should consider their use.

All national authorities should consider developing their own e-Navigation strategic actionplan, taking into account the IMO strategy

Test beds are essential for progressing e-Navigation. e-Navigation test beds should demonstrate a response to identified user needs and should

take into account the human element and economic implications. Test beds could look at ways to reduce the administrative burden on mariners and opera-

tors ashore. It is recognised that errors occur, thus e-Navigation should help reduce the scope for errors

onshore and aboard and mitigate the consequences. Tools, procedures and training for ensuring usability of e-Navigation applications should be

considered during design and testing. Test bed methodology and evaluation criteria should be harmonised to allow validation of

outputs and quality assurance.

e-Navigation Underway 2012: Key conclusions



received onshore, more than halfof respondents indicated theyhad received it after they werefirst required to use the equip-ment.

This in turn created a re-liance on the use of manuals forproblem solving – particularlyfor the use of GMDSS and ECDIS– suggesting an overwhelmingdependence on documentationfor knowledge acquisition, eventhough these might not beprinted in the user’s mothertongue.

There were other cultural dif-ferences too, with quantity andquality of training varyingstrongly. The report acknowl-edges however, that preferencefor certain types of training, suchas CBT, or the emphasis on cadettraining may represent the lim-ited alternatives available asmuch as they do an apparent di-vergence along national lines.

Focussing further on ECDIS,the report makes for even grim-mer reading. Of the five piecesof equipment that deck officerswere asked about, ECDIS was theone about which they had theleast confidence. Almost one in10 respondents described theirknowledge of ECDIS as ‘zero’,while one in five said theirknowledge was only ‘basic’.

Training ashore remains thedominant form of learning aboutECDIS but the use of manuals isalso important for refresher andproblem-solving. Unsurprisingly,

If your job involvedoperation of criticalsystems and safetyequipment you

would probably expect to betrained before you first usedthem. You would presume too,that you wouldn’t have to takeleave to do the training, giventhe benefits to both parties. Andwhen it came to using the actualequipment, you’d doubtless as-sume that someone would giveyou enough handover to enableyou to use the system safely.

That might be the case forworkers ashore but it is clearlynot always true for seafarers. In arecent study New Shipboard Tech-nology and Training Provision forSeafarers, the Seafarers Interna-tional Research Centre (SIRC)concludes that current practicesin training and handover are insome cases inadequate and inothers, simply non-existent.

SIRC asked 1000 officersabout their use of main enginemanoeuvring and control sys-tems, ARPA/radar, AIS, GPS,GMDSS and ECDIS as well asoily water separators and highvoltage equipment.

While the majority (82%) ofseafarers felt training on newequipment was adequate, only aquarter were given input into theidentification of their trainingneeds. Almost half were ex-pected to pay in part or full to-wards their training and morethan a quarter were never com-pensated for leave time lost as aresult.

Even when training is re-ceived it is often far from opti-mal. ECDIS training for examplewas reported as having been gen-erally less than five days dura-tion and though the majority was

the older the officers questioned,the less likely they were to in-clude their cadet training as im-portant to their understanding ofECDIS. Seafarers aged below 30were most likely to regard it ashaving contributed to that under-standing.

Fewer respondents reportedconsulting colleagues or usinghandover familiarisation andnotes when using ECDIS, whichsuggests they were relying moreon previous experience than fa-miliarity with the specific equip-ment when they took over fromcrew signing off.

The handover from one offi-cer to another when joining avessel is a crucial link in thesafety chain but the SIRC re-search found that in their mostrecent handover, 10% of juniorofficers and 7% of senior officersdescribed handover as inade-quate, with no explanation ofhow the equipment worked.

The SIRC research raisesmore questions than it answersbut it comes at an importanttime. The need for increasedquantity and quality of traininghas become something of a by-word for the shipping industry’swait-and-see attitude to theECDIS mandate.

And yet hearing the day-to-day experiences of seafarers is areminder that we should neverbe glib about their needs and thedifferences between life at seaand ashore.

As part of a series of initiatives to assist the ship-

ping industry prepare for mandatory carriage of

ECDIS, Admiralty is sponsoring IMO Model

Course 1.27 training courses for 100 bridge offi-

cers at maritime colleges around the world. For

a chance to win a place, visit: https://admiralty-

training.admiralty.co.uk/

NAVIGATION

Recent research indicates more thanhalf of bridge officers have used ECDISat sea before completing any trainingashore, reports Neville Smith

ECDIS inexperience is a cause for alarm


DIVERSIONS


integration becomes less attrac-tive, as the need to easily repair,replace or upgrade componentsbecomes more pressing.

Furthermore working outexactly when such repairs needto be carried out ahead of time,before a critical failure – ie, onethat would defeat the ship’s in-stalled redundancy for complet-ing a voyage under its ownpower – occurring, is no simpletask.

Sailing without a crewwould call for a dramaticallyhigher level of ‘silicon’ integra-tion than is the case today. Itwould likely call for additionalnew areas of expertise, includ-ing advanced servo-controlmechanisms and possibly semi-autonomous robotics to per-form physical tasks.

Topsy-turvy thinkingBut maybe this is a topsy-turvyway of thinking about the prob-

Is the time right to revisit the idea ofcompletely unmanned autonomousor semi-autonomous remote-control ships?

The F35, it has beenpredicted, is likely tobe the last mannedfighter plane. The

ongoing conflict in Afghanistanhas acted as a testing groundfor a new generation of aerialdrones. And they have provedthemselves a force to be reck-oned with. What does this haveto do with merchant shipping?

If the air force can rundrones reliably enough at alti-tude in a hostile enemy environ-ment with telemetry systemsgood enough to trust the use ofserious weaponry systems, thensurely aspects of these technolo-gies could be deployed in cargoships moving from point A topoint B in what is mostly a be-nign 2D environment.

Efficiency gainsThere are some clear efficiencygains to be had by doing awaywith a ship’s crew. Pay-checksare an immediate saving. Indi-rect crew costs, such as trainingand welfare, also disappear. Theship’s accommodation blockcan be given over to carryingmore cargo, thereby improvingyield.

It would allow a differentapproach to dealing withpiracy. Firstly, there would beno crew to hold hostage. Withno need to cater for humans,vessels would be harder toboard and commandeer. Defen-sive options not possible withhumans onboard would likelybecome possible.

In terms of constructing acrewless ship, expected vessellifetime is a key parameter insystem design. The probabilityof encountering an equipmentfailure increases the longer avessel is in service.

For shorter-lived vessels,complex, deep integrationmight be feasible, but as in-tended lifetime increases, deep

lem. Today’s systems andequipment are designed on theassumption of a human pres-ence. How would those designschange if such an assumptionno longer existed? Not havingto cater to human interferencemight result in more compact,efficient hardware. Indeed, ithas been observed that manymanual tasks required of a shipengineer on his rounds couldbe designed out. On the otherhand, the unavailability of ahuman back-up could equallyresult in extra complexity,adding to overall capital cost.

Extending this line ofthought, one may well ask whatan engineer or innovator withno prior concept of today’sships would come up with facedwith the challenge of gettingcargo from point A to point Bover water as efficiently as pos-sible. Would fully autonomousships be the outcome?

Remote controlOr would the next best thing –remote-control vessels –emerge as solution? This ap-proach would capitalise on theavailability of much improvedsatellite-enabled communica-tion channels between ship andshore. The idea would be forthe intelligence to be per-formed ashore, with satcomsacting as a conduit to send in-structions that must be per-formed by the remote ‘outputdevice’, namely the ship.

But this raises the questionof how to divide tasks betweenship and shore. What level ofredundancy would be requiredto ensure the ship would not goout of control if the satellitelink failed for an extended du-ration? Cynics might argue thatsuch challenges already exist,except today the actors areshore-based superintendentsand low-waged human crew.

Return of the drones

� An F35 underconstruction ‒ butit might well bethe last mannedfighter

dive.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 12:46 Page 32

20 years experience. 1 simple solution.• Type Approved PMS

• Minimal Training Required

• Rapid Technical Support Service

• No ‘Per Seat’ or any Annual License Fees

• Global Customer Base from VLCC’s to Workboats

• Complete Package or Single Modular Components available

• PMS, Stock, Procurement, Dry Dock, Safety & Document Management Solutions

From ship to shore,simplicity is the key to success.

Visit www.marinesoftware.co.uk or email [email protected]

IBC.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 10:05 Page 1

BC.qxp:Layout 1 5/4/12 10:08 Page 1

Documents

Maritime IT & Electronics (April/May 2012)