|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: TWL: RE: Another traditional instrument to bite the dust?
From: Arild Jensen (elnav@XXX.XXX)
Date: Sat Sep 01 2001 - 19:38:50 EDT
someone wrote:
> Kind of makes you wonder just what they're doing on vessels like the
>Exxon Valdez . . .
and Ken replied:
> Makes me shutter to think of Compressed Liquid Natural Gas tankers
>comming up the Chesapeake and docking off Calvert Cliffs Nuke Plant to off
>load - with or without GPS . . .
Arild chips in:
It was the Exxon Valdez that sparked the electronic chart revolution. At
that time they didn't have such a thing.
Canada, realizing that these tankers sailing from Valdez to American
ports to the south also became concerned about the consequences if an oil
spill happened off Vancouver island.
A white paper was circulated in government and industry circles asking for
ideas and proposals on how to improve the situation.
Until that time basic chart plotters were all that was available. ie
Generation 1 C-map. Essentially a shoreline drawing on a monochrome
screen display. Depths and other details were extremely limited.
A company that had been developing specialized geologic curvey systems for
the oil exploration industry working in the arctic proposed to develop a
vector chart version equivalent to the official paper charts.
Eventually the commercial system was dubbed ECPINS - a precursoir for the
later ECDIS which became the IMO standard.
The minister for Finance in Canada at the time also happened to own a
shipping company. He "volunteered" to have the shipping company test this
ECPINS system on 11 of their vessels.
The intial trial was a huge success, despite some obvious short comings.
Canada's Hydrographic Service was just then converting their traditional
paper based database of cartography into a digital format. The ECPINS
trial forced the issue into the forefront and essentially drove the
development of electronic charting in Canada - and subsequently the world.
The University of New Bruswick happened to have a department which was
doing GIS work for regular surveying and there they developed the
software which by now has become the industry benchmark.
CARIS ( the commercial software ) is now used worldwide by many other
Hydrographic offices in converting their database into electronic charts.
I just happened to be witness to this whole process because I was at that
time Course Director for Canadian Power & Sail Squadrons. I was developing
training course material to update the Electronic Navigation course.
Naturally Electronic Charting caught everyon's imagination!
I was fortunate enough to be invited aboard several ships using this
system. In fact one company flew me to Montreal to board one of their bulk
freighters as it journeyed upstream through the St. Lawrence Seaway system.
I spent three days observing how this system functioned. As luck would
have it, the crew was being given the full training course on that trip
and I sat in on it.
In addition, CPS sent me to various conferences pertaining to hydrography
and electroninc Charting.
This again provided an unparalleled learning opportunity.
In international circles, Canada is considered a leader in electronic
cartography. ( of course our neighbours to the south doesn't like to admit
that; but they did buy several ECPINS systems for their navy and CoastGuard
ships for evaluation ) < grin>
As the IMO embraced the principels of electronic charting, and began
developing standards, industry raced to be among the first to get a fully
IMO compliant system to market.
Ship owners also liked the sytem, because now they could get away with
hiring cheaper crew and officers.
With automation and elecretonic navigation, they figured they didn't need
a Captain with 20 years experience. For that matter they figured they
didn't need a fourth mate or a radio officer and so on.
In todays commercial shipping world ( at least offshore) you will find a
deplorable state of affairs compared to what it was fifteen years ago.
Ships that were once manned by 30 or 40 crew now are manned by 18 - 25
people.
Whreas you could expect to see an Officer of the Watch, a helmsman and a
lookout on the bridge in the old days, now you are lucky to find one watch
keeper. Some ship's bridges do not even have provision for a person to
step outside for a better look.
A recent incident off the east coast highlights this situation.
A fishing trawler was rammed and sunk by a large ship that didn't even
stop. Fortunately, the skipper survived and reported the incident. After
tracing all commercial ship movement in the area, a suspect ship was
located docked in Canada.
Subsequent investigation revealed damage and scrape marks plus paint that
was considered conclusive evidence.
The point is the skipper and crew denied any knowledge of having struck a
fishing boat.
Given today's technology, that is quite possibly true. A single watch
keeper cocooned inside a snug bridge in the dead of night and relying on
automated GPS, RADAR and autopilot would likely be engrossed in the
overwhelming paperwork routine that is nowe required on all SOLAS ships.
We have not seen another EXXON VALDEZ type incident in North America.
However, there have been a number of incidents elsewhere in the world that
compare in terms of stupidity and negligence. Many of these newer
incidents which include both groundings and collisions are often attributed
to technological short comings. not just crew errors.
So the next time you pass a big freighter and it doesn't look like anybody
is on the bridge, you may just be right.
Cheers
Arild
|