|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: TWL: RE: Another traditional instrument to bite the dust?
From: 2448210 (2448210@XXX.XXX)
Date: Sun Sep 02 2001 - 09:33:34 EDT
DRINKING!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arild Jensen" <elnav@XXX.XXX>
To: "M. Kenneth McQuage" <tobyboat@XXX.XXX Schroeder"
<jschroeder1@XXX.XXX>
Cc: <trawler-world-list@XXX.XXX>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: TWL: RE: Another traditional instrument to bite the dust?
> 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
>
|