IMO NCSR10: 10 – 19 May 2023

The meeting of the sub-committee on Navigation, Communications, Search and Rescue (NCSR) was held under the chairmanship Nigel Clifford of New Zealand. This was the first in person meeting since Covid so there was more time available to catch up on items which had been deferred. The agenda still proved to be quite challenging however and some items could not be completed for lack of time. Some hybrid working possible was possible for members who were unable to attend in person.

A document had been received from Ukraine expressing concerns on the Russian Federation's actions impacting the functioning of Ukraine's system of navigational and hydrographic support of shipping in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. This led to considerable debate although some of the issues raised were outside of the scope of the sub-committee. In conclusion Member States were encouraged to ensure that the functioning of key navigational aids and systems was protected at all times and particularly during any conflict situation in order to guarantee the safety of international shipping and protect the lives of seafarers.

Following the work of the last meeting in preparing revised performance standards for the electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS), amendments were agreed to add a requirement for standardised digital exchange of ship’s route plans. No input had been received on proposals to amend the performance standards for the Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) so this item was deleted from the work programme.

There was considerable discussion on proposals to amend SOLAS to improve the safety of pilot transfer arrangements. The way forward was concluded to be the development of a new resolution containing performance standards and this task was referred to a correspondence group led by China.

Maritime Safety Information (MSI) Providers

The issue of increased costs for Maritime Safety Information (MSI) providers as new GMDSS satellite service providers are recognised in addition to Inmarsat had been referred by the last meeting to a correspondence group led by Australia. The group had defined a number of options but none of the options could offer a perfect outcome. The issue will now be referred to the Maritime Safety Committee for further advice. Revisions were prepared to the Iridium SafetyCast service manual, the Joint IMO/IHO/WMO Manual on Maritime Safety Information and MSC.1/Circ.1610 concerning the description of maritime services in the context of e-navigation. Proposals to revise the criteria for the provision of new GMDSS satellite service providers (resolution A.1001(25)) received from a correspondence group set up by the last meeting were referred back to the group led by France.

Various liaison statements to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) were prepared concerning the IMO position for the next ITU World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC 23); proposals to modify the recommendation M.1371-5 for the Automatic Identification System (AIS), issues on coding of emergency indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs), and digital selective calling alarms relating to bridge alert management.

The meeting noted information provided by radio manufacturers that it would not be realistic to produce new GMDSS radios in time for deadline of installations after 1 January 2024. Proposals were prepared for the Committee to consider a revised date of 1 January 2028. COMSAR/Circ.32 relating to the availability of radio equipment was revised following experience of its use.

The issue of unlawful practices associated with the manipulation of data transmissions from the automatic identification system (AIS) and tampering of AIS transponders was discussed with a view to possibly identifying improved technical arrangements.

Some items had been received but were not considered to be sufficiently mature to be actioned. Proposals for performance standards for NAVDAT, intended to be a possible replacement for NAVTEX, were referred to the next meeting. Proposals for generic performance standards for shipborne satellite navigation system receiver equipment were referred back to the correspondence group led by Germany. Proposals for the introduction of a VHF data exchange system (VDES) were referred to a correspondence group led by Japan.

There were no ship’s routeing proposals submitted to the meeting. A UK proposal for a new mandatory reporting system in the Pentland Firth, which was not agreed at the previous meeting, was agreed as a voluntary system. Associated protective measures within a particularly sensitive sea area in the North-Western Mediterranean Sea were prepared to protect cetaceans. The chair of the Experts Group on Ship’s Routeing, George Detweiller of the USA, announced that this would be his last meeting as he was retiring. He had chaired the group since NCSR4.

Upcoming Meetings Relating To Maritime Safety

The next meeting of NCSR is planned for 4 to 13 June 2024. A meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 107) is planned for 31 May to 9 June 2023. A meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group is planned for 9 to 13 October 2023. A meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group is planned for 6 to 10 November 2023. The meeting proposed to invite the Committee to authorize the holding of annual meetings of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group and the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group in future until advised otherwise.

by Kim Fisher

The meeting of the sub-committee on Navigation, Communications, Search and Rescue was chaired by Ringo Lakeman of the Netherlands. Due to the extensive workload of this sub-committee, it had been agreed that the meeting would be extended exceptionally to 8 days for this and next year.

Some good progress was achieved.

The Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) system was updated and revised Circulars prepared. Guidelines were completed for the standardization of user interface design for navigation equipment (also known a S-mode) together with a revision of the IMO Circular on navigation-related symbols, terms and abbreviations (SN.1/Circ.243) and the performance standards for the presentation of navigation-related information (Resolution MSC.191).

Considerable work was conducted on the harmonization of the format and structure of maritime services (previously known as maritime service portfolios) following the report of intersessional work in the IMO/IHO Harmonization Group on Data Modelling (HGDM). A guidance resolution was prepared together with a Circular describing 16 maritime services in detail. Work was completed on a Circular giving guidance for navigation and communication equipment for use on ships operating in polar waters.

The previous decision to accept the Iridium satellite system as a recognised service in addition to Inmarsat had led to the need to revise some IMO documents to make them more generic. Revisions were prepared to the SafetyNET manual, Resolution A.705 on the promulgation of maritime safety information, Resolution A.706 on the world-wide navigational warning service, and Resolution A.1051 on the world-wide met-ocean information and warning service. A Circular was prepared on technical requirements for the new Inmarsat Fleet Safety service. The issue of interoperability of the two systems in future was carried over to the next meeting.

Work continued on the revision of Chapter IV (Radiocommunications) of the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and associated documents. This will be continued in a correspondence group led by the USA.

The IMO position was completed for the next International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference to be held later this year. Various liaison statements were prepared concerning autonomous maritime radio devices (AMRD), protection criteria and Automatic Identification Systems (AIS).

New standards were completed for Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) to include the second generation Cospas-Sarsat satellites and a liaison statement sent to ITU.

New traffic separation schemes with precautionary areas were agree for the Sunda Strait and Lombok Strait Indonesia. The voluntary Dover Strait movement reporting system (MAREP) was terminated as it is now little used having been overtaken by the mandatory CALDOVREP.

The next meeting of NCSR is planned for 15 to 24 January 2020. A meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee is planned for 5 to 14 June 2019. A meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group is planned for 8 to 12 July 2019. A meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group is planned for 9 to 13 September 2019 in Chile.

Seaborne Blockade Running

Ball bearing market

Ball bearings were important to the war effort in Germany and Britain. The only quality source was neutral Sweden and the trade embraced ball bearings, roller bearings, production machines and special steel.

Both Britain and Germany had some leverage so it would have been difficult for the Swedish industry to withhold all supplies of ball bearings to either belligerent.

There was a curious anomaly in that the Swedish parent company SKF had ‘branches’ in both countries – the German VKF in Schweinfurt,and the British Skefko in Luton. However, the local manufacture was still dependent on Swedish steel and spares for the production machines.

Proposal

George Binney, flotilla leader. Photo credit Barker.

A central figure in the blockade running was George Binney who graduated from Merton College in 1922; he joined the Hudson Bay Company and then United Steel. At the outbreak of war, he was posted to the legation in Stockholm and tasked with maximising Britain’s trade in steel and frustrating that of the Germans.

In 1941 Binney masterminded Operation Rubble which was the breakout of five Norwegian merchant ships interned in Sweden and loaded with 25,000 tons of steel supplies. However, two ships loaded with steel remained marooned in Lysekil Fjord on the west coast of Sweden. Binney proposed using converted Motor Gun Boats (MGB) to bring this cargo home because they would be faster and more difficult to intercept than merchant ships.

Sweden’s neutral role was complex. In WW1 Sweden had been largely pro German but when WW2 started probably 90% sympathised with Britain. One exception was the Swedish Board of Admirals which favoured Germany – this view was inherited from the belief that Sweden’s safety required a strong Germany to counter balance the hereditary enemy Russia.

Freighters

Above: MGB 502 with slim line superstructure; photo credit IWM. Below: Gay Viking with deck mounted superstructure; photo credit ships.nostalgia.
The gunboat to freighter conversion was achieved thanks to the Turkish Navy. Eight Camper & Nicholson 117ft MGBs under were being constructed for Turkey but were commandeered by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of war. Five were converted to freighters by turning the accommodation below into forward and aft holds. A lightweight deckhouse with open bridge was constructed on the deck. The boats had three diesel engines and would cruise at 20 knots with a cargo capacity of 40 tons. The boats were armed with Oerlikons fore and aft, twin Vickers .303in machine guns on either side of the bridge and a quadruple Vickers abaft the bridge.

The entire operation had to be a merchant navy affair. The natural source for recruiting crews was the Ellerman Shipping Company because their Wilson Line was based at Hull and familiar with North Sea conditions.

Each boat was commanded by a First Mate holding a Master’s ticket and each carried a ‘Chief Officer’ who was an SOE liaison officer. Crew volunteers were sought for “a service entailing special risks”. Most of those selected came from Hull and many were not more than twenty years old. They were picked for their adaptability as much as their professional skill; the deckhouse would be very cramped for 20 men so best suited to the young and fit.
The opposition was daunting. Outside Swedish waters the boats would run the gauntlet of standing patrols in the Skagerrak, radar stations on both sides of the gap, minefields, destroyers based in Denmark and Norway and hostile command of the air to mid North Sea. There would also be large fishing fleets to avoid. In Sweden the boats would be watched by German agents and diplomats.

Against this the freighters would be wood which gave a low radar return, shallow draft which allowed them to cross some mine fields and fast. The boats planned to pass through the Skagerrak both ways at night but these conditions would only be met during the longer winter nights.

Passage

Track between Hull and Lysekil.

The boats were ready in autumn 1943; the aim was to bring back 400 tons of steel over the winter. Binney planned to lead his flotilla as a convoy of 5 boats but from the beginning the boats suffered from engine and gearbox failures. On 23 Dec Binney could only muster 2 boats. Hopewell and Gay Viking, commanded by George Binney and Harry Whitfield. They sailed into a NW 4-5 and crossed the North Sea at 15kt. Then on Hopewell the central engine broke down, the starboard engine became temporarily out of action with air locks in the fuel line and soon after that the steering gear failed.

The wind was now F6 from NW and discouraged a return. However with the starboard engine working again and the steering repaired Hopewell declared she could manage 15k on the two wing engines. Gay Viking tucked in behind Hopewell and they carried on through the Skagerrak, staying 25 miles off the Danish coast.

Opposite Kristiansand they took evasive action for two substantial unlit echoes off the starboard bow. Later they learnt that these had been a destroyer accompanied by a torpedo boat and a minelayer. Later they avoided two more unlit radar echoes, They entered Swedish waters at 05.30 and berthed at Lysekil 07.39 despite Hopewell having trouble with its starboard gearbox.

When the boats tied up they were to find themselves harassed by the Swedish navy. A Swedish naval control party boarded to seal all guns, ammunition, radio and radar equipment while in port. 2hr later a Swedish naval officer returned to Hopewell with instructions to remove the radar display tube. The officer took this to a corvette also lying alongside the pier. Binney demanded the return and protested to the local magistrate, 40min later the tube was returned. 2hr later a more senior Swedish officer demanded the radar tubes from both boats but Binney refused.

The mayor asked to see round Hopewell –during his visit he said he regretted the naval incident and told Binney that the British boats had the goodwill of the authorities and of the local inhabitants.

When Gay Viking needed authorisation to move berth the same Swedish naval officer asked, and was granted, permission to come aboard for the move and to bring two Post Office engineers to agree the location of the seals. One engineer was later identified not as a Post Office engineer but as the head of SATT which was a German controlled subsidiary of the German electrical firm AEG.

At 1730 on 16 Jan Gay Viking sailed, leaving Hopewell waiting for spares. It is now known that the Germans had already moved three more destroyers to Kristiansand to be kept at 2hr notice to sail. Two days later at 0745 Gay Viking passed through the Humber boom.

By PK Hope-Lang

Acknowledgements for this three-part series:
Ralph Barker, 1976. ‘The Blockade Busters’. Chatto & Windus, London.
Norman Malayney, who had served in Vietnam with the 12th Tactical Fighter Wing, had a great interest in the BOAC Mosquitos and had interviewed all the crew that he could find.
Alan S Milward, “Could Sweden have stopped the Second World War?,” The Scandinavian Economic History Review, vol. XV, 1967, 127‐138.
Ernest Schofield and Roy Conyers Nesbitt, 1987. ‘Arctic Airmen’. History Press, Stroud.
Jeff White of The Old Tautonians Association