The problem with the shipping industry is most groups sitting in authority are silly old farts ( ex Captains) that can barely use a PC.
Hows ecdis going a perfect example.
The aircraft industry had flight control computers in the 50’s hence its long way from shipping
Two different things going on:
- Can technology or procedures used in aviation be helpful on boats? Sure it can, tech and procedures have been flowing both ways since airplanes got invented. Remember BRM is the offspring of CRM for good or ill.
- Is this specific company onto anything useful or spewing word-salad “leveraging cross-platform synergy” Dilbert bullcrap that impresses people with money but absolutely no knowledge of the tech involved? I was say yes to that!
1 Like
If you show up here I’ll take you flying and see if you can point at anything the plane does you wish a ship could do.
The difference isn’t the tech, it is the SYSTEM it works in. There is no such thing as “big airplane control” or “heavy airplane traffic control”, anywhere that airplanes are under positive control ALL of them are. EVERYONE is part of it even if they are in a one-seat airplane.
Try another angle - What exactly would you want to see in the way of tech for ships that doesn’t exist now?
Simple really………STANDARDISATION OF EQUIPMENT. Stop the free for all that currently exists in the maritime arena.
1 Like
a standard for alarms would be the first job
( look at the cockup ecdis was/is, IMO didnt know what to do)
1 Like
They have in Singapore ( including jet skis) thailand and malaysia, mostly pleasurecraft
Foreign craft when in Indonesia
It’s that thing Earl has mentioned several time here.
The Operational Concept Document (OCD) is the document that outlines the intended use and operational environment of a system.
I’d think something like that would come first.
I, for one, am excited about the possibility of aviation’s terrain awareness and warning systems (TAWS) being implemented into boating to prevent that most dreaded of marine accidents, controlled flight into terrain.
I am of an age where if I have any status it is probably an exceptionally old fart. I cut my teeth on mechanical computers for fire control of guns and torpedoes: Ran machine language programs of sound transmission in seawater before finally getting my hands on an IBM system 7. Throughout I understood that unless I was in a submarine, I was operating in a two dimensional space so I was good at looking out the window.
1 Like
In marine operations it’s called a grounding. The relevant alarm would be the ECDIS safety contour / Safety Zone alarm.
This already exists in numerous forms. My own plotter can do this.
I am not a professional mariner or pilot. I have traveled extensively by air and ship. I can see that operating ships in a system based on air traffic control may have a few advantages. (stopping and maneuvering a 5000 ton ship at 12 knots COULD be compared to landing a 30 ton plane at 400 MPH) but that’s about it. It would further complicate liability issues, reduce response time and create more legal issues than carter has pills. Small boats operating in congested channels are there at their own liability. Big ships operating in congested channels generally notice each other and have plenty of time to work course conflicts out, with proper communications. Adding a third party with their own communication skills and OPINION of what is possible and safe would (in my opinion) create a much less safe environment.
It isn’t even perfect with airplanes 
Here’s an article from the FAA about “Data Comm”.
Voice communications are time consuming and labor intensive, slow operations and can lead to miscommunications between controllers and pilots
A similar system might be useful on the maritime side. For example requesting a pilot time in busy ports like Signapore or for the “stupid questions”, last port, next port etc.
From 1 January 2024 it will be compulsory for ports around the world to operate Maritime Single Windows (MSWs) for the electronic exchange of information required on ships’ arrival at a port, their stay and their departure. This mandatory change follows the adoption by IMO’s Facilitation Committee of amendments to the FAL Convention.
3 Likes
That’s pretty cool. Thanks for mentioning that.
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Facilitation/Pages/MaritimeSingleWindow-default.aspx
I would think that would be easy, soon enough even my dinghy will have Starlink and the various port authorities have websites. No big tech rollout needed, just some organizing a standard way to do it.
Aircraft have had this for ages now:
What some want to roll out is data links for actual real-time ATC instead of the current system of AM voice radio. I have mixed feelings about that, listening to all the other airplanes gives one some good situational awareness and the tone of voice helps. Landing at Daytona I got a “N123, HARD RIGHT NOW:” This seemed to call for more than standard rate, standing the plane on a wingtip and hauling her hard to the south the sky to the north was pitch black and it turned out I was avoiding a tornado 
Did that darkness just suddenly appear in your windshield in the 2 or 3 seconds of the controller’s transmission?
Pretty much, in IMC you can’t see very far ahead.
Because the characteristics of maritime and aviation differ the evolution of the control systems differed.
Near larger ports maritime uses Vessel Traffic Systems (VTS) which separates traffic with lanes.
In the lanes COLREGS has rules for vessels under 20 meters as well as other rules regarding use of the lanes.
Instead of air traffic controllers on the ground maritime puts marine pilots aboard the ships. Pilots are able to better coordinate ship movements with other pilots than ships would be able to otherwise. Many port also have a shore-based port control (often run by pilots) which aids in the coordination of ship movements
Better to focus on improvements to the current system in place rather than replacement with a system better suited to aviation