Excellent article on a subject that is in many forum threads/topics - well worth reading.
[When the technology crutch is kicked - Splash247]
(When the technology crutch is kicked - Splash247)
“senior officers are increasingly expressing unease about their junior colleagues’ fundamental navigational skills”
… and a lot more valid points through the article.
That is an excellent article.
I thought the concept of the two approaches, training for 'traditional skills" and the “Nav Champions” is interesting but I don’t think the example of teaching how to do a sun sight is a good example. i think the entire 'what if the GNSS fails" is the wrong approach.
The better approach is to focus on skills that both reduce risk and workload.
Treating every piece of information with suspicion until it is collaborated with something else?
From the linked article:
Seafarers express concern about those who are drawn in and lulled into a false sense of security, where technology becomes not just a tool but a substitute for seamanship. The phrase that captures this perfectly: a reluctance to “even look out of the window.” This isn’t merely about preference; it represents a fundamental shift in how navigation is conceived.
This is mostly true but it’s not always the case that there’s a “false sense of security”. In my experience junior officers in ship traffic often seem stressed by the high workload. Information gained by looking out the window however, can be used as a filter to reduce the information that requires processing by instruments (ARPA, radar, ECIDS etc)
The issue than becomes one of trust and credibly because the idea that leaving the instruments for even a short period of time will reduce workload doesn’t seem plausible to many junior officers.
This, from the linked article highlights this dynamic"
The dynamics aboard ship depend on a delicate balance of authority, competence, and mutual respect. When that balance tips, the psychological safety net that crews depend on begins to fray. Any erosion of professional trust creates discomfort, but more, it creates danger too.
Of course 'out the window" does have limits and use the instruments is obviously often required.
Most newbuilds don’t even have the ability to plot manually - no sextant, no universal plotting sheets, no triangles or parallel rules. Some older ships that have been converted to full ECDIS may have some old charts squirrelled away “just in case”, but newer ships are 100% dependant on electronic navigation. What’s their plan if the electronics fail? Call the DPA on the sat-phone and ask for a course to steer - seriously!
I think part of the blame lies with the IMO and the requirements of STCW - schools don’t teach seamanship, they teach to the tests and the “old fashioned” skills are covered just enough to pass your exam. It doesn’t help that the master now spends most of his day answering emails rather than mentoring junior crew; not that the crew is on the bridge after their watch to learn anyway. The off-watch is all in their cabins using their MLC-mandated wifi to stream movies.
You can manually plot a fix on an ECDIS. It’s rare anyone over the age of 30 knows how to do it. If shit is so bad that we don’t even have power to all 3 redundant ECDIS’ then we likely have much larger problems than getting an immediate fix
You’ve personally been on a ship without a sextant, parallel rulers, or plotting sheets? You’ve witnessed that yourself?
I think bridge watchstanding can be thought of as a continuous process of seeking and resolving mismatches between the various available resources such as instruments (ECDIS, ARPA, AIS, ect) and direct observation, 'out the window:.
I don’t think it is easy for those young enough to grow up with GPS. Back in the day NOTHING was absolute. RDF bearings were +/- two degrees if everything was perfect and easily could be 10 degrees off. LORAN was good for finding the same thing twice, but otherwise could easily be off enough to have you on dry land going up a river. DR had obvious inaccuracies, celestial had a lot of places for error to creep in and counted on clear skies, and on and on. Back in the day you never trusted ANYTHING 100% and were always looking for another way to confirm where you were.
Besides for all that, you made allowances for not knowing where you were to the foot. If you have radar, you’ll want to be good enough to get the sea buoy on the screen and go right by it, then you are fixed for entering the harbor. With GPS it is so very hard to not say “that is exactly where I am” because usually it IS exactly where you are. If the buoy is missing it is because it got run over or broke off the chain and floated to Ireland, not because the GPS is screwed up. Usually.
In a paper submitted to the IMO HTW sub-committee working group meeting on the comprehensive review of the STCW in October 2024, an NGO proposed:
References to celestial navigation, checking compass errors through the use of celestial bodies and the use of sextants should be deleted
In support, they noted:
The use of celestial navigation is an obsolete competence that is no longer needed within current navigational skill sets and cannot be used in practice due to the lack of sextants on board.
[ISWG-STCW 1/2]
That a sextant can also be used to plot a position on a chart or the ability to construct a plotting sheet would be classed as an obsolete competence as well.
Have we done away with the chart table ?
I’m an academy cadet and my terrestrial navigation class is my favorite. I really love the art/skill of chart plotting and being competent in it. Really looking forward to celestial navigation too.
One of my professors is a master unlimited who is in his 70s and spent over 40 years at sea. He always urges us how important it is to actually learn Tnav and Cnav due to the increasing issues with cyber breaches on AIS and ECDIS.
I’ll admit, it does kinda suck that paper charts are phasing out at a time that I’m working on entering the industry. I’d love to do actual chart plotting on paper as a mate and use celestial to complete a voyage from departure to arrival, rather than let the ECDIS do it for me. That’s part of really drew me into being a mariner over 10 years ago. I think it’s simply fascinating
The old RNC charts in both electronic and printed form are works of art. When I was a very young lad my father would give me and my brother an old paper chart of wherever we were headed next and we would have endless fun finding things like unexploded bombs on it.
I know someone who worked on making the old-style charts and some of it was fascinating like a diary of a 19th century surveyor/explorer talking about rocks around a cove in Alaska.
Pro tip: No one took a kayak with a sonar around rocks with waves breaking around and over them and surveyed them to the inch, so if it looks like a bunch of rocks it IS a bunch of rocks estimated from some distance off in 1870!
So yes? No?
“You’ve personally been on a ship without a sextant, parallel rulers, or plotting sheets? You’ve witnessed that yourself?”
100%. I’ve specifically asked and on several new-builds, they have no “traditional” plotting tools. I’ve been told by a master that their SMS says “call the company and ask for help” if they loose all electronic navigation.
The Sea-Land D-7s didn’t carry sextants. Run was Tacoma-Anchorage-Kodiak-Dutch Harbor.
I need to try this.
Right now, only a proposal. The comprehensive review and amendment of STCW is a multi-year process. So far, only “gaps" (portions of STCW to be considered for possible revision) have been identified.