25/02/2014 – Yves Le Franc
S100NW CG
IMO BACKGROUND RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF E-NAVIGATION
(Items specifically concerning the S100NW CG are highlighted in documents NAV 56/WP.5/Rev.1, Annexes 2 to 4, NAV58/14, annex 7, NAV58/WP.6/Rev.1, annex 2, NAV 59/6, Annex 1, NAV 59/6, annex 3)
At Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) 85 (2009), the Committee approved the Strategy for the development and implementation of e-navigation (MSC 85/26/Add.1, Annex 20), which contains the following definition of e-navigation:
“E-navigation is the harmonized collection, integration, exchange, presentation and analysis of marine information on board and ashore by electronic means to enhance berth to berth navigation and related services for safety and security at sea and protection of the marine environment.”
“E-navigation is intended to meet present and future user needs through harmonization of marine navigation systems and supporting shore services.”
The MSC also endorsed that the COMSAR, NAV and STW Sub-Committees should jointly develop a coordinated approach to implement the proposed e-navigation strategy and thus, an IMO Correspondence Group on e-navigation was established.
As part of the basic requirements for the implementation and operation of e-navigation, it was agreed that implementation of e-navigation should be based on user needs and not be technology-driven.
Consequently, NAV 56 (2010) identified and approved the list of user needs (i.e. shipboard, shore-based and SAR authority user needs) (NAV 56/WP.5/Rev.1, Annexes 2 to 4).
MSC 85 recognized that the overall conceptual, functional and technical architecture will need to be developed and maintained, particularly in terms of process description, data structures, information systems, communications technology and regulations.
Subsequently, MSC 90 (2012) approved the current overarching e-navigation architecture; a proposed way forward for developing a Common Maritime Data Structure (CMDS); the use of the IHO's S-100 standard as the baseline for creating a framework for data access and services under the scope of SOLAS. See NAV57/WP6.
Based on the identified used needs, a gap analysis (NAV58/14, annex 7) was performed in order to identify potential e-navigation solutions, taking into account the Human Element Analyzing Process (HEAP) and with focus on the key elements and core objectives of e-navigation.
After performing the gap analysis, the following potential e-navigation solutions were identified (NAV58/WP.6/Rev.1, annex 2):
S1 Improved, harmonized and user-friendly bridge design;
S2 Means for standardized and automated reporting;
S3 Improved reliability, resilience and integrity of bridge equipment and navigation information;
S4 Integration and presentation of available information in graphical displays received via communication equipment;
S5 Information management;
S6 Improved access to relevant information for Search and Rescue;
S7 Improved reliability, resilience and integrity of bridge equipment and navigation information for shore-based users;
S8 Improved and harmonized shore-based systems and services; and
S9 Improved communication of VTS service portfolio[1].
NAV 58 (2012) endorsed the preliminary list of potential e-navigation solutions, as work in progress, and agreed that the above list should be used as the basis for the further identification of Risk Control Options (RCOs), as a part of the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) which includes risk and cost/benefit analysis.
Accordingly, the FSA was conducted based on 5 potential e-navigation solutions (i.e. S1, S2, S3, S4 and S9) which were prioritized taking into account the following criteria:
.1 seamless transfer of data between various equipment on board; and
.2 seamless transfer of electronic information/data between ship and shore and vice versa and between ship to ship and shore to shore.
The remaining identified potential e-navigation solutions (i.e. S5, S6, S7 and S8) would be addressed in the future as part of the iterative process of e-navigation.
NAV 59 (2013) noted the results of the FSA, as set out in document NAV 59/6, Annex 1, including the finalized risk and cost-benefit analyses and the identified RCO. In doing so, the Sub-Committee noted concerns expressed that the cost figures used for the FSA did not match the experience of ship owners who have fitted comparable equipment and that, for this reason, the outcome of the FSA could not be fully supported. Notwithstanding that, the Sub-Committee agreed that the FSA should not be peer-reviewed or revisited.
As part of the FSA, the following RCOs were identified which provided effective risk reduction in a cost-effective manner:
RCO 1: Integration of navigation information and equipment including improved software quality assurance
RCO 2: Bridge alert management
RCO 3: Standardized mode(s) for navigation equipment<>
RCO 4: Automated and standardized ship-shore reporting
RCO 5: Improved reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems
RCO 6: Improved shore-based services
RCO 7: Bridge and workstation layout standardization
Having recognized the need to harmonize and standardize identify shore based functions and services under different situations and/or locations (e.g., ports, coastal and high seas), NAV 59 noted the following preliminary list of Maritime Service Portfolios (MSPs) (see NAV 59/6, annex 3):
- (MSP 1) VTS Information Service (IS);
- (MSP 2) VTS Navigation Assistance Service (NAS);
- (MSP 3) VTS Traffic Organization Service (TOS);
- (MSP 4) Local Port Service (LPS);
- (MSP 5) Maritime Safety Information (MSI) service;
- (MSP 6) pilotage service;
- (MSP 7) tugs service;
- (MSP 8) vessel shore reporting;
- (MSP 9) Telemedical Maritime Assistance Service (TMAS);
- (MSP 10) Maritime Assistance Service (MAS);
- (MSP 11) nautical chart service;
- (MSP 12) nautical publications service;
- (MSP 13) ice navigation service;
- (MSP 14) Meteorological information service;
- (MSP 15) real-time hydrographic and environmental information services; and
- (MSP 16) Search and Rescue (SAR) Service.
NAV 59 also agreed that MSPs should consider operations in the following areas:
.1 port areas and approaches;
.2 coastal waters and confined or restricted areas;
.3 open sea and ocean areas;
.4 areas with offshore and/or infrastructure developments
.5 polar areas; and
.6 other remote areas.
With respect to the above-mentioned areas, and with reference to communications requirements, it would be necessary to be aware of the existence of the GMDSS sea areas and any changes that could be made to these areas in the future.
The IMO Correspondence Group on e-navigation is finalizing the proposal of the Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP). The main objective of the SIP is to identify the list of tasks which would need to be performed during the coming years in order to achieve the 5 prioritized e-navigation solutions.