I don’t know if that’s correct. In the long run it cheaper to use a backup ECDIS to avoid the cost of maintaining a full portfolio of charts
GNSS has proven to be very accurate and reliable. It’s now the primary method of marine navigation.
Loss of GNSS signal would be low probability-high consequence event. Having the watch officer manually plot a fix (to maintain familiarity with the technique) on the ECDIS during periods of low workload is a low-cost way to mitigate that risk.
Traditional methods means:
Using visual piloting techniques without aids when appropriate - that’s still very much valid.
Taking frequent rounds of bearings and ranges when in restricted waters - No longer needed. Use instead parallel indexing on the radar if appropriate.
Plotting on paper charts - no longer needed, keep some small scale charts on hand for planning and emergencies.
That would be requiring the watch officer to stay proficient using non-GNSS methods such as plotting a radar bearing / range when available using the ECDIS (once a watch perhaps) during periods of low workload, parallel index on the radar etc.
How to and what to prepare for Murphy’s Law concerning ECDIS failure: what little I think I understand about ECDIS comes from a Lowrance chart plotter on a small craft we had so I am ignorant of the modern system’s capabilities. Backup plans to accomodate safe passage are not new nor should be ignored. But what plan?
Fall back on charts and visual sights? Your track needs to be on there already and you gonna need someone to assist taking bearings. I am limited by my naval experience so be kind! Those bridge wings and pelorus on most merchant ships these days look like long distance. Where is the chart table? Cheeze, what a nightmare!
Why not a handheld chart plotter GPS thingy with the approach to pier/anchorage? You gonna have to stand in the rain but everyone is waterproof!
Having lived in both worlds - i hope this helps explain some of the differences.
Merchant ships do not navigate inside channels with the “nav team” you are used to in the Navy. We don’t take 2 or 3 min fixes, plotted on a chart table and relayed to the conning officer. With such things as yards off track, time to next turn etc. There are reasons the Navy does it this way. Mostly because they need to be prepared to go into any port at any time without assistance, if needed. We make fun of them for this practice on merchant ships - but there is a reason for it.
On merchant ships, in port, we take or are pilots. The bridge team monitors the pilots, notes the vessels progress through the channel but nobody is actively fixing the vessels position on a chart.
Now in coastal waters, where piloting methods of navigation are possible. Merchant ships did ( hope still do ) use visual bearings, radar ranges, etc to fix the vessels position at intervals in relation to the risks. There is some walking to do on a big bridge, but a proficient officer can easily fix the ships position rather quickly.
On Navy vessels, at least in my day, this was done in similar situations by the QMOW, under direction of the OOD.
Would imagine in todays world this is no longer done, and the officers or OOD’s just look at the screen for their position.
Mostly not done I think. The logic is that the watch officer has a higher probability of catching an error by using the ECDIS instead of bent over the chart table plotting fixes. That’s the whole purpose of the ECDIS, to give the watch officer more time watching forward.
Yea - understand - would also guess frees time for collision avoidance in heavy traffic situations.
So to pose a question here -
I believe one link in the error chain of the Valdez was the watch officer was busy getting a fixture instead of watching/knowing that the ship was not turning as he ordered.
You think and ECDIS would have prevented that. Would it have kept him in the window and noticing the ship was not turning ??
In theory he would have had a much better chance, just a glace would have told him where he was in relationship to the turn and the track.
In practice, everything being else equal probably no, because if the Captain couldn’t be bothered to stay on the bridge a few more minutes he certainly wouldn’t have taken the time to enter in a new track-line.
the requirement is for one ECDIS with backup charts. Two redundant units, allowing them to be paperless, is optional.
the vast majority of commercial vessels don’t fall under either of those categories.
Yes, and that means taking ranges and bearings and plotting them on the chart.
The “emergency procedures” are the “traditional methods” being discussed in this thread.
I think posts :#2 and #3 are saying there is value in plotting in and of itself but i don’t agree. It’s just processing data/information which just kept in short-term memory etc.
That may be true for large ships that trade over a large area and have a large portfolio of charts but that isn’t the vast majority of commercial vessels. Most commercial vessels don’t have even one ECDIS, they use a laptop plotting program with paper charts as backup.
True, but there’s a difference between the risks of YOU losing YOUR GPS and the entire constellation going down. It’s fairly easy for your GPS to fail, antennas and antenna cables go bad. Most chart plotters in use on commercial vessels only have one GPS feeding them so even if there’s multiple GPSs on board, if you lose your primary GPS you’ve lost your ECS.
No, they’re saying knowing how to do it has value.
Remember, the entire point of this thread is:
I could be mistaken but the way I read this:
Is the first part is the inherent value of plotting and the second part is the “what if”.
He says your “abilities”, as in, since you’ve been trained to plot you can look at the ECDIS and interprete what you’re seeing better. Not, you should be constantly plotting.
I don’t want to judge anyone, but should we specify the boundary conditions before further discussion.
What kind of ships are we talking about?
What do we understand by ECDIS and eNav?
Once again, in a nutshell.
Every ECDIS has at least two position sensors which very often works in a different GNSS system.
Each ECDIS should meet very strict software, hardware and power supply requirements.
Before commencing a sea voyage, each route/track should be properly planned, configured and checked. All alarms, safety settings, lookahead sectors must be predefined and active.
Each user of the ECDIS system is properly trained, i.e. has completed a model IMO generic course and a type specific training authorized by the manufacturer.
I work for European operator of chemical parcel-tankers. Our fleet consists of around 40 small vessels, say 2500GT to 10000GT, ranging in age from 5 to 25 years old. There are no paper charts on any of them and this is no exception.
No it is not.
Its going to be like the airline industry, they will make the planes/ships fool proof so idiots can fly/pilot them.
Saves money not training them to have any manual flying/navigation skills.
Talking about a specific incident but one that would quickly switch from a technical discussion to one about who’s to blame and go off topic
Also…
Similar to Opinion | Ditch the GPS. It’s ruining your brain. - WP
and
Ditch the Map. It’s Ruining Your Brain - A General Overview of Human Factors and Navigation
Not that good of an analogy. A comparison to shiphandling would be more apropos.
I was thinking the path to autonomous ships is removing on board skills hence autonomous will work if all the ships are under the same control like aircraft in controlled airspace, what skill does the pilot need?
Dynamic positioning absorbs the environment to initiate the command you choose, maybe not as good as a good operator but its can do it 24/7/365
Aircraft dont crash into each other in the sky or on the ground as an external person makes the decisions most likely as they have a better overview and thats in 3D
Getting oriented to a new area requires two steps, step one is finding your position on a chart and than step two, knowing that, orienting to the immediate environment.
The electronic chart allows the navigator to skip step one and go directly to step two. The ECDIS greatly reduces the time it takes to orient oneself in an unfamiliar port.
Using the ECDIS, to some degree, gives a similar advantage as having made two or three trips into a port already as compared to entering for the first time.
The autonomous ship can use the exact path of the previous trip or any other vessels trip they care to load up and or any offset programmed in.
We are redundant.
Engineers will survive.