RIN Blog
Blog Home All Blogs

Notes on a meeting of SONAC

Posted By John Hasselgren, 08 August 2023

Notes on a meeting of SONAC held via Teams on Tuesday 14th June 2023

Written by John Hasselgren

I attended this meeting at the request of Paul Bryans, Chairman of the Small Craft Group, as he was unable to do so himself.

The meeting was Chaired by Capt. Patrick Mowatt RN. It was recorded for subsequent viewing.

Apologies for absence were taken and the minutes of the previous meeting were accepted.

Jason Scholey, Senior Product Manager, then gave an update on Digital Navigation.

The main reasons for the change to digital equipment and techniques are:

1. Drivers: Environmental accountability – the need to decarbonize and use cleaner fuel.
Improved operational efficiency.

2. Solutions: Alternative fuels, although this isn’t the responsibility of UKHO.
Optimization in the use of shipping.
Autonomous Navigation.

3. Enablers: Internet connectivity.
Cyber security.
Training of seafarers and the use of simulators.

IMO has approved the use of S-100 charts on ECDIS equipment by 2026.

S-100 charts on ECDIS will be required for all new installations from 2029.

These changes are expected to be gradual and should fit with the common ten-year cycle of replacing bridge equipment. Current services will be needed for the next ten years before the advent of second generation of digital services. There is also the need to improve the availability of the existing services, with the OKHO being responsible for not only the UK but also Crown Dependencies and other waters, a total of 71 areas. Currently, only 15% of UKHO products are now on paper. Much data is still distributed on DVDs and there is a need to move to online distribution and reduce the amount of plastic used.

Sailing Directions are being digitized so that they may be read online instead of getting out a book. (I must here say that I would be most unlikely to read my Thames Estuary Pilot if I had to do so online. I much prefer the book, but I don’t need to carry the set for the world.)

Tidal services are, at present, based on tidal gauges, but are moving towards using Oceanographic modelling with the ability to build in Meteorological influences. This should improve the accuracy of tidal heights and flows. It is expected that long-term tidal data will be available using the Oceanographic method, with short-term improved data given three or four days in advance.

Data improvements on charts include greater consistency between adjacent ENCs, removing the problem of contours not joining one another. Higher contour density in critical areas will give greater information and make it easier to set a limiting depth contour rather than equipment defaulting to the next depth.  Enriched consistency on charts, with greater land detail will allow better visual referencing and position fixing. Areas where this has been tried, with success, include Oban – Fort William, Anglesea, Caernarfon and Cardigan Bays, Milford Haven and The Wash. Very high praise for this came from the Pilots in Milford Haven.

Nick Nash commented that a smaller gap between contours would be very useful in both Belfast and Dublin. The ferries often draw 8.2 metres and seem to risk crossing the 10-metre contour into shallow water, especially when being audited.

Lisa Denson gave a brief update on the sub-ECDIS situation. Basically, nothing has changed. The focus is on those customers who need a solution to be able to use digital navigation. The first step is getting international agreement on charts and equipment. She confirmed that the MCA is involved in this and that UKHO will continue to produce paper charts until at least 2030.

David Robertson from MAIB then presented some ship groundings that could be attributed to errors in digital navigation with ECDIS.

The first was Chem Alya, an 11,939 GT chemical tanker that used the Needles Channel to exit the Solent, despite a warning on the chart that this was unadvisable for vessels over 10,000 GT due to strong tidal streams and changing widths of the channel. She drifted north of the channel and grounded on the Shingles. The conclusion was that the passage plan ignored the recommendation that this channel should not have been used by this ship, and that route check alerts and off-track alarms hadn’t been dealt with.

Next, the Kaami, a small (2,715 GRT) general cargo ship that grounded in the Little Minch near the Shiant Islands. The conclusion here was that the safety contours on the ECDIS were unchanged since the crew joined the ship, the Master hadn’t used the safety check function to verify the passage plan and that ECDIS was an ineffective tool for passage monitoring because of inappropriate set-up. It was also said that the management company had not the experience nor the training to enable it to effectively audit ECDIS.

The Key Bora, 2,627 GRT chemical tanker, grounded on a rock in the approach to Kyleakin. The rock was shown on the latest ENC which had been downloaded eight days prior to the grounding but had not been checked and no one on board was aware of this latest correction. Conclusions – the ship ran aground due to the passage plan being based on inaccurate (old) survey data. The safety contour had been set at 6.48 metres but, not matching one of the five charted depth contours on the ENC in use, had defaulted to ten metres. The crew had also been relied upon to conduct navigational audits of their own processes.

Personally, I wouldn’t consider any of these as failures of digital navigation. Rather, they seem to me to be down to a lack of good navigation techniques such as updating charts, the use of back bearings, checking the ship’s position by sighting buoys, by radar and looking out of the window.

In the discussions that followed Trevor Harris from Trinity House seemed to agree with my thoughts above when he said there was a fundamental failure of navigation. He quoted two masters who didn’t know what a South Cardinal marker meant. In another case a vessel grounded alongside a port-hand lateral buoy, the course having been laid the wrong side of the buoy. Those making these mistakes were now expected to cope with ECDIS.

Ships are known to transfer Passage Plans, sometimes from one vessel to another, sometimes buying them from a commercial company. An earlier Passage Plan may be used at a later date without updating things like the draft. What to do about this? One suggestion was that, just as aircraft had to file a flight plan before they were allowed to take off, perhaps passage plans should be filed and approved before sailing. But by whom? The Port State, the MCA or the Harbour Authority? My comment on this was that when the TSS was established off Harwich the Harwich Haven Authority refused any responsibility for monitoring the area or giving advice to shipping. It would get no income unless the vessel entered Harwich, but would need to insure itself in case of any errors. That TSS is monitored by Channel Navigation Information Services in Dover. What would it cost to monitor all these passage plans, and who would pay?

At the end of the meeting, I was asked to remind RIN that it had agreed to take the lead, with the Chamber of Shipping, at the SONAC meeting on 17th October 2023 when the subject was to be Cybersecurity and Resilient Digital Navigation.

John Hasselgren.

15/06/2023

 

Tags:  digital navigation  Small Craft Group  SONAC  UKHO 

PermalinkComments (0)