A study on the e-navigation modus operandi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………….iii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………….iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………………v
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………………………..vii
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………………..viii
ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………….ix
1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Objective ……………………………………………………………………………………………….3
1.3 Scope of the study …………………………………………………………………………………..4
1.4 Methodology and sources of information …………………………………………………..4
2. THE E-NAVIGATION CONCEPT……………………………………………………………………6
2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………6
2.2 The development of e-Navigation……………………………………………………………..8
2.3 Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP)…………………………………………………………10
2.4 Risk Control Options (RCOs)…………………………………………………………………14
2.4.1 RCO 1 Integration of navigation information and equipment including
improved Software Quality Assurance …………………………………………………………..14
2.4.2 RCO 2 Bridge alert management………………………………………………………15
2.4.3 RCO 3 Standardized mode(s) for navigation equipment………………………15
2.4.4 RCO 4: Automated and standardized ship-shore reporting …………………..16
2.4.5 RCO 5: Improved reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems ……17
2.4.6 RCO 6 Improved shore-based services………………………………………………18
2.4.7 RCO 7 Bridge and workstation layout standardization ……………………….19
2.5 Maritime Service Portfolio (MSP)…………………………………………………………..20
3. METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE E-NAVIGATION MODUS OPERANDI……23
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….23
3.2 Qualitative method ………………………………………………………………………………..23
3.3 Interview and data source……………………………………………………………………….24
3.4 Narrative analysis………………………………………………………………………………….26
3.5 Ethical considerations and limitation of the methodology…………………………..27
4. ANALYSIS OF E-NAVIGATION MODUS OPERANDI………………………………….29
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….29
4.2 E-Navigation. How does it work?……………………………………………………………31
4.2.1 Ashore…………………………………………………………………………………………..31
4.2.2 On board ……………………………………………………………………………………….33
vi
4.2.3 The role of communication between ship to ship, ship to shore, shore to
ship, and shore to shore………………………………………………………………………………..35
5. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF E-NAVIGATION…….37
5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….37
5.2 Identified shortcomings………………………………………………………………………….39
5.2.1 The problem of data / information integrity. …………………………………………..39
5.2.2 No acknowledgement of information being received by the operator…………41
5.2.3 Loss of the traditional skills………………………………………………………………….42
5.2.4 Two tier society ………………………………………………………………………………….43
5.2.5 Worst case scenario …………………………………………………………………………….44
5.2.6 Non-compliance possibility of non-SOLAS vessel within e-Navigation…….45
5.3 Identified benefits………………………………………………………………………………….46
5.4 Discussion on the shortcomings and benefits of e-Navigation …………………….50
5.5 Consideration for potential future direction on e-Navigation ………………………52
5.6 S-Mode………………………………………………………………………………………………..52
5.7 Cybersecurity ……………………………………………………………………………………….54
6. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………..60
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………….63
APPENDIX I …………………………………………………………………………………………………….66
APPENDIX II……………………………………………………………………………………………………69
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Solution and Sub-solutions (Source. Annex 7 NCSR 1/28)…………………………13
Table 2. Type of Services and Services Provider of MSP (Annex 7 NCSR 1/28)……….22
Table 3. Benefits of e-Navigation (Adapted from the Nautical Institute, 2009)…..…….48
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. RCO Identification Process……………………………………………………………………10
Figure 2. E-Navigation architecture ……………………………………………………………………..30
Figure 3. The 7 pillars of e-Navigation ………………………………………………………………..30
Figure 4. Concept Operation by VDES…………………………………………………………………36
Figure 5. Statistic of participants’ e-Navigation technical knowledge………………….37
Figure 6. Distribution of category of interviewee professional background ……….….38
Figure 7. Total vulnerabilities by year ………………………………………………………………….55
Figure 8. Total vulnerabilities by each type within 18 years …………….…………….56
Figure 9. Vulnerabilities by type and year ……………………………………………. 57
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
AIS Automatic Identification System
BES Bridge Equipment System
BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council
CG Correspondence Group
CLC Closed-Loop Communication
CIRM Committee International Radio Maritime
CVE Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System
eNOA/D Electronic Notice of Arrival/Departure
EEC Electronic Communication Committee
ENC Electronic Navigational Chart
FSA Formal Safety Assessment
GDMSS Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GRT Gross Tonnage
HMI Human Machine Interface
IALA International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation
and Lighthouse Authorities
IBS Integrated Bridge System
IEC International Electro-technical Commission
x
IGO Intergovernmental Organization
IHO International Hydrographic Organization
IMO International Maritime Organization
INS Integrated Navigation System
ITU International Telecommunication Union
LPS Local Port Service
LORAN Long Range Navigation
MAS Maritime Helpance Service
MSC Maritime Safety Committee
MSI Maritime Safety Information
MSP Maritime Service Portfolio
NAS Navigational Helpance Service
NCSR IMO Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications, Search &
Rescue
NGO Non Governmental Organization
OOW Officer of the Watch
PNT Resilient Position, Navigation and Timing.
RCO Risk Control Option
SAR Search and Rescue
SIP Strategy Implementation Plan
SOLAS The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
SSN Safe Sea Net
xi
TMAS Telemedical Helpance Service
TOS Traffic Organization Service
US United States
USCG United States Coast Guard
VDES VHF Data Exchange System
VMAS Vessel Monitoring and Alert System
VTS Vessel Traffic Services
WG Working Group
WMO World Meteorological Organization
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Without a doubt, accidents and incidents at the sea mostly caused by human error.
Weintrit (2016) pointed out “the combination of navigational errors and human failure
indicate a potential failure of the main ship systems used for navigation and control”.
Additionally, when the system is an extremely complex with low familiarity of the user,
the performance of human machine interaction can be problematic (Lee et al, 2015). The
research found that over 50 percent groundings and collisions are caused by the human
error, whilst navigation decision making was the main issue (The Nautical Institute,
2009). There are so many factors that make the decision making difficult such as lack of
awareness of a dangerous situation, insufficient resource awareness in a timely manner,
or fear of failure of unintended consequence. However, the procedures about making
decision is probably different in every situation, but combination of analytical thinking
and logical sense might be the best way to address these problems. Thus, the information
is the key where the decision maker needs to disprove bad propositions.
The revolution of technology has been growing fast, and continually changing. The
evolution has resulted much more technology interconnection. Thus, the technology has
been considered as a helpful tool to Help people to achieve their specific purpose, for
instance making ships more efficient or to prevent unintended situations, working
alongside traditional methods. Lützhöft (2004) discussed cognitive science and human
factors in maritime field making a conclusion that integration is about co-ordination, co-
2
operation and compromise. She points out “when human and technology met and work
together, most of the time the human has to co-ordinate the resources, co-operate with
devices, and compromise between means and ends” (p.57).
However, the revolution of technology in maritime industry sometimes replaces
traditional methods. Today, we are facing the era of digitalization of information
management, and taking the advantages of it in order to keep up with the business’s
wave while protecting the people and the environment. In recognition to the digital age,
and the need to improve the integrity and accuracy of information used by the main
stakeholders, the IMO embarked on a new initiative, e-Navigation.
In Annex 20 of MSC 85/26 Add. 1 (para. 1.1) e-Navigation is defined as
“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, protection of the marine
environment” (IMO, 2008). This initiative has a purpose to strengthen the navigation
system to create eligibility outcomes on the future of marine navigation. In addition, its
hoping to reduce the number of incident in marine environment caused by human error.
But does this make things easier or difficult to connecting ship and shore, and for them
to use the information? Thus, when humans are introduced to some new systems that are
controlled remotely, they often lose their sense of practical engagement. Further, the risk
of system failure has been raised as well as human factors issues. To maximize the
Human Machine Interface (HMI) the bridge system must be use good ergonomics and
preferably a low cost budget.
IMO through its Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP) as set out in the NCSR document
1/28 Annex 7, is addresses those risks by set up five prioritized e-Navigation solutions.
The NAV and COMSAR subcommittee and MSC created Correspondence Group (CG)
and Working Groups (WG) addressing a Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) as the
3
standard risk assessment tool to be used for the development of new rules and
regulations of IMO, as described in the Annex of MSC 83/INF.2, to finally established
the framework of SIP plan. In addition, it is hoped that e-Navigation concept will create
a system where the mariner and crew’s support can make a decision when they are
facing unsafe situations on the ship’s bridge, as well as simplifying navigation tools
(Hong, 2015).
1.2 Objective
This dissertation researches e-Navigation’s modus operandi. It mainly focuses on studies
and discussions on how and to what extent the modus operandi of e-Navigation can be
utilised to improve safety in marine navigation. As e-Navigation is currently still being
developed, this dissertation will provide a benchmark for the benefits of e-Navigation to
harmonize all vessels, but also the steps that need to be considered for the
implementation of e-Navigation throughout the community.
In addition, this dissertation may serve as a reference in policy-making regarding
maritime safety of the member states of the IMO and the other actors of e-Navigation
related systems. Therefore, this dissertation:
 Examines the potential of e-Navigation and addresses how to accommodate
aspects such as multilingualism and diverse vessel types in features needed on
the ship, ashore, or on both sides.
 Identify weaknesses and the benefits of the implementation of e-Navigation,
taking into consideration all vessels that are addressed by SOLAS as well as
those that share the same waters, and what operational modes required and
procedures that should be established.
 Identify potential changes to ensure the S-Mode, as consequence of e-Navigation
might be failed.
4
1.3 Scope of the study
This dissertation includes six Chapters. Chapter 1 shows the background, objectives,
scope and methodologies of the research.
Chapter 2 includes an overview of the development of e-Navigation, through examining
and reviewing SIP developed by the IMO, including a general overview of tool kits used
in IMO e-Navigation, namely Risk Control Option (RCO) and Maritime Service
Portfolio (MSP).
Chapter 3 determines the methodology to be used in this dissertation. To define the
methodologies, this chapter introduce the interview and cross check between results of
interview and the SIP developed by the IMO and other e-Navigation related documents.
The researcher also discusses about the limitation of the methodology.
Chapter 4 gives an in-depth analysis of e-Navigation modus operandi, including insights
gained from interview results and SIP by IMO. The analysis will concern a shore side
and an onboard side, as well as the role of communication between ship to ship, ship to
shore, shore to ship, and shore to shore.
Chapter 5 discusses the potential impact of the implementation of the e-Navigation
concept. Here, the shortcomings and the benefits, as well as the discussion of the impact
of e-Navigation will be discussed. Recommendations for the future of e-Navigation will
also be introduced and outlined.
Finally, Chapter 6 gives a summary and includes a final conclusion of this dissertation.
1.4 Methodology and sources of information
The research questions, which reflect the research objectives of this paper, are as
follows:
5
1) Will there be a significant change of how the operator ashore and on board
conduct navigation of vessels or advisory services to them with respect to
e-Navigation and non e-Navigation vessels.
2) Will there are differences of “quality” and accuracy of e-Navigation services
offered by different Coastal States to all vessels and how will a vessel deal
with this.
3) What are the steps (if any) need to be taken to avoid grounding or collision
with an assumption is taken that vessels and shore stakeholders that are
interacting with each other will have different levels of sophistication of
navigation and control equipment? Additionally, different levels of
e-Navigation services will be experienced by the mariner for Vessel Traffic
System (VTS), weather forecast, Just in Time Arrival at narrows or port
requiring different steps.
To answer these questions, this dissertation will use qualitative research. An
examination and review of the e-Navigation related documents developed by the IMO
and other related research papers will be carried out in order to define the appropriate
analysis tools. The aforementioned documents were collected from the IMO website,
other sources on the internet, and the WMU library. In addition, an online interview with
stakeholders will be carried out as one of the qualitative analysis items in order to verify
real life and up-to-date information of the e-Navigation.
6
2. THE E-NAVIGATION CONCEPT
2.1 Introduction
As already stated, e-Navigation is a major initiative of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), and is intended to be implemented according to Strategy
Implementation Plan (SIP), which was approved by MSC 94 in November 2014. The
plan contains a list of tasks required to be conducted in order to address five prioritized
e-Navigation solutions, namely:
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; and
S5: Improved Communication of VTS Service Portfolio (not limited
to VTS stations).
It is expected that these tasks, when completed within the period of 2015–2019, should
provide the maritime industry with harmonized information that is essential to start
designing products and services to meet the e-Navigation solutions (IMO, 2014).
The IALA and IMO who have already put forth great efforts to act as a driver of the
evolution of portrayal and communication within the maritime community. It is
7
understood that, in order to facilitate e-Navigation, processes used for technical transfer
of data and information should be machine to machine and not require any human
intervention to either receive or portray the information (IMO, 2014).
According to Baldauf and Hong (2016), the situation of maritime safety is different from
country to country especially in coastal areas and SOLAS ships are always interfaced
with non-SOLAS ships in real maritime practices. Furthermore, it has been realized
within the community that e-Navigation should be able to include all vessels and not just
a few complex ones; as such, a range of inter-communicability is required to transfer
data, ensuring that all vessels are included within the concept. Though satellite
communications are recognized to be an important element for e-Navigation, it is also
recognized that other more basic communication would be required alongside it.
This inter-communicability needs to have led to work for evolving language independent
protocols for the transfer of information between vessels, and vessels and infrastructure
to include a methodology for the portrayal of data within the language of an operator.
This work builds on “the international code of signals”, first introduced at the
International Radiotelegraph Conference in Madrid in 1932, and still used today.
Furthermore, e-Navigation not only impacts the way information will be communicated
to a vessel, but also how information will be used on board. Because it requires data to
be provided machine to machine, and because the purpose of e-Navigation is to
improved resilience of the communication link but also to be used VTS and ship
reporting. The interaction between ship and shore is likely to rely more and more on
automated, or semi-automated procedures, where the mariner becomes an observer, and
in certain circumstances, may even in the future be provided with some resolved
solutions which can be rejected or accepted. This brings in to question what should
happen to solutions that have not been acted upon by the mariner. What is the default
scenario? Should the machine accept the solution?
8
It is observed during this research that e-Navigation bridge of the future as will the
operation centers ashore, result in changed roles of the watch keeper. The equipment
itself will be designed to provide direct data access to and from systems used for the
navigation and control, and possibly even effect the control of a vessel. Automatic
information updates, instead of the current system of manual inputs in the form of
corrections, will also be implemented.
2.2 The development of e-Navigation
During the MSC 81 session in 2006, USA, Japan, the Marshall Islands, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, and Singapore made a joint proposal for eNavigation, a concept that would contribute to reducing navigational accidents, error,
and failures. As such, the NAV and COMSAR Sub-Committees developed a strategy for
the development and implementation of e-Navigation (NAV 54/25 Annex 12) and a time
frame for implementation (NAV 54/25 Annex 13), with suitable suggestions by several
organizations such as the IALA and IHO. Ultimately, the MSC approved the strategy
called the e-Navigation SIP (NCSR 1/28 Annex 7), and expect it to be implemented in
2020.
There are many stakeholders involved with the evolution of e-Navigation, who are
working closely with the IMO NCSR sub-committee. A good understanding of the
contribution of these other organizations is needed, as e-Navigation is dependent on the
IALA, IHO, as well as the IEC and ITU. These organizations are very important in their
own way for the development of the key components required for the communication
and portrayal of information, as well as the design of the equipment used. For instance,
the IALA is ready to change its status from Non Governmental Organization (NGO) to
Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) in order to Help the advancement and
accordance of aids to navigation globally (Weintrit, 2016). The interface between ashore
and onboard developments will be heavily influenced by the work of these
9
organizations. Additionally, there are procedures within the e-Navigation that will have
most effect on the bridge in the future:
 portrayal of information required for safe navigation.
 communication of information from ship to ship, ship to shore, and shore to ship.
Both of these are interdependent of each other and will heavily involve the Electronic
Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS) referred to IALA, IHO and IEC. And
also satellite communication and VHF Data Exchange System (VDES) referred to IALA
and ITU.
The e-Navigation concept “covers ship-side technologies like Integrated Navigation
Systems (INS) integrating electronic charts, navigation and conning data or integrated
surveillance systems on shore with technologies like VDES, Automatic Identification
Systems (AIS), Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), Resilient
Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT)” (Hahn et al., 2016). Furthermore, by
forming a competent national SIP, member states are expected to enjoy the prosperity of
applying e-Navigation to their waters in the terms of their distinctive priorities (Baldauf
and Hong, 2016). Therefore, e-Navigation will establish more efficient and safer transit
of vessels. This initiative provided that the communication link is used correctly,
cooperation for maritime safety and security, protection of marine environment, and the
appropriate interaction between stakeholders ashore and onboard is dealt with correctly.
Many research and vast resources have tackled e-Navigation as well as its related
conventions, such as SOLAS, which regulates the safety of navigation. E-Navigation
also affects not only all vessels, but also the country’s conformation with those
conventions related to their own fleets, their VTS, their ports, and how they interact with
vessels as a coastal state. SOLAS presents itself as a major beacon for the evolution of
e-Navigation, as it addresses many critical elements and operations that are included
10
within e-Navigation, while a SIP (IMO NCSR 1/28) sets out the work required for
stakeholders to enable e-Navigation. This provides guidance covering all aspects of
human interaction in the way of user friendly bridge designs, technical requirements for
automated reporting; and as such, the inter-communicability between stakeholders and
required regulating bodies.
2.3 Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP)
In 2014, MSC 94 established a SIP through NCSR 1/28 Annex 20. As the core of the
implementation of e-Navigation, the SIP provides solutions for the gaps analysis and
user needs through the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), which are addressed in the
seven parts of the RCO and sixteen services of the MSP in the SIP as a kits to achieve
the five prioritized e-Navigation solutions and sub solutions.
Figure 1. RCO Identification Process (NAV 59/6)
Solution Sub Solution
S1
Improved,
Harmonized and
User-Friendly
Bridge Design
(S1.1) Ergonomically improved and harmonized bridge and
workstation layout
(S1.2) Extended use of standardized and unified symbology for
relevant bridge equipment
(S1.3) Standardized manuals for operations and familiarization
to be provided in electronic format for relevant equipment
(S1.4) Standard default settings, save/recall settings, and S-mode
11
functionalities on relevant equipment
(S1.5) All bridge equipment to follow IMO Bridge Alert
Management
(S1.6) Information accuracy/reliability indication functionality
for relevant equipment
(S1 6.1) Graphical or numerical presentation of levels of
reliability together with the provided information
(S1.7) Integrated bridge display system (INS) for improved
access to shipboard information.
(S1.8) GMDSS equipment integration – one common interface.
S2
Means for
Standardized and
Automated
Reporting
(S2.1) Single-entry of reportable information in single-window
solution.
(S2.2) Automated collection of internal ship data for reporting.
(S2.3) Automated or semi-automated digital
distribution/communication of required reportable information,
including both “static” documentation and “dynamic”
information.
(S2.4) All national reporting requirements to apply standardized
digital reporting formats based on recognized internationally
harmonized standards, such as IMO FAL Forms or
SN.1/Circ.289.
S3
Improved
Reliability,
Resilience and
Integrity of Bridge
Equipment and
(S3.1) Standardized self-check/built-in integrity test (BIIT) with
interface for relevant equipment (e.g. bridge equipment).
(S3.2) Standard endurance, quality and integrity verification
testing for relevant bridge equipment, including software.
(S3.3) Perform information integrity tests based on integration of
navigational equipment – application of INS integrity
12
Navigation
Information
monitoring concept
(S3.4) Improved reliability and resilience of onboard PNT
information
S 4
Integration and
Presentation of
Available
Information
in Graphical
Displays
Received via
Communication
Equipment
(S4.1) Integration and presentation of available information in
graphical displays (including MSI, AIS, charts, radar, etc)
received via communication equipment
(S4.1.1) Implement a Common Maritime Data Structure and
include parameters for priority, source, and ownership of
information.
(S4.1.2) Standardized interfaces for data exchange should be
developed to support transfer of information from
communication equipment to navigational systems (INS).
(S4.1.3) Provide mapping of specific services (information
available) to specific regions (e.g. maritime service portfolios)
with status and access requirements.
(S4.1.4) Provision of system for automatic source and channel
management on board for the selection of most appropriate
communication means (equipment) according to criteria as, band
width, content, integrity, costs.
(S4.1.5) Routing and filtering of information on board (weather,
intended route, etc.).
(S4.1.6) Provide quality assurance process to ensure that all data
is reliable and is based on a consistent common reference system
(CCRS) or converted to such before integration and display.
13
(S4.1.7) Implement harmonized presentation concept of
information exchanged via communication equipment including
standard symbology and text support taking into account human
element and ergonomics design principles to ensure useful
presentation and prevent overload.
(S4.1.8) Develop a holistic presentation library as required to
support accurate presentation across displays.
(S4.1.9) Provide Alert functionality of INS concepts to
information received by communication equipment and
integrated into INS.
(S.4.1.10) Harmonization of conventions and regulations for
navigation and communication equipment
S9
Improved
Communication of
VTS Service
Portfolio
(S9) Improved communication of VTS service portfolio (not
limited to VTS stations)
Table 1. Solution and Sub-Solutions Prioritized e-Navigation (Source. Annex 7 NCSR
1/28)
Therefore, it is crucial to have a deep understanding of the SIP to see how e-Navigation
concept works. Further, the RCOs will be discussed analyzed in the next section by the
researcher are extracted by the IMO related documents such as NAV. 59/6 and NCSR
1/28.
14
2.4 Risk Control Options (RCOs)
2.4.1 RCO 1 Integration of navigation information and equipment including improved
Software Quality Assurance
As it is stated in Annex 1 NAV. 59/6 presented by Norway, RCO 1 is related to subsolutions: S1.6, S1.7, S3.1, S3.2, S3.3, S4.1.2, and S4.1.6. The integration of navigation
information and equipment will help the navigator when it comes to navigational
decision making. In addition, there are 7 elements contained in RCO 1 that are
incorporated with INS standards, as listed below:
1. Task route planning and monitoring
2. Task collision avoidance
3. Task navigation control data
4. Task status and data display
5. Display
6. Redundancy of important equipment
7. Software testing
As stated in the main RCO 1 text, it is essential that navigational information be
centralized, allow it to be visible from all work stations. This will enable quicker
decision-making and give crew members an overview of relevant information.
Additionally, the document states that:
Sophisticated bridge navigational systems are increasingly integrated with each
other and with other kinds of systems on the ship. This, as well as the implicit
ability of these systems to influence each other, increases complexity. As such, it
is of increasing importance that these systems are usable, available, reliable and
resilient. (p. 23)
15
2.4.2 RCO 2 Bridge alert management
RCO 2 is related to S1.5. The purpose of having a unified bridge alert system is to
enable harmonized priority, classification, handling, distribution, and presentation of
alerts (NAV 59/6). Through this system, situational awareness in the bridge team will be
increased, so that when it comes to unwanted events, the bridge team will be able to
respond quickly and save time on decision making. Furthermore, the vessel which have
an audible alarm on the bridge will prioritize dangerous scenarios, such as collision or
grounding displayed on the central alert management HMI.
According to the document NAV 59/6, one of the key problems faced in vessels without
a centralized alert system is that alerts are not always easily identified. Additionally, if
all alerts are not coming from a central system, it is often difficult to prioritise the alerts.
Additionally, “Potentially unnecessary distractions of the bridge team by redundant and
superfluous audible and visual alarm announcements may occur, increasing the
cognitive load on the operator.” (NAV 59/6 p. 23). With a centralized system,
information from different alert sources will be available in the same place, facilitating
decision-making with regard to prioritization.
2.4.3 RCO 3 Standardized mode(s) for navigation equipment
RCO 3 is related to S1.4. It refers to the standardisation of technology, an essential facet
of a safe operation at sea. As stated in Annex 7 NCSR 1/28:
Standard modes or default display configurations are envisaged for relevant
navigational equipment. Such standard modes should be selectable at the task
station and would reset presentation and settings of information to provide a
standardized and common display familiar to all users. (p. 23).
16
This is particularly important in the context of commercialism: it is important to keep in
mind that companies developing e-Navigation technologies must compete in the free
market and maintain a competitive advantage. Therefore, guidelines and standards on
display layouts and essential functions should be mandated for all e-Navigation
products.
Enforcing such guidelines would ensure that a standardized training program can be
implemented so that all crew members are on the same page in terms of using the
e-Navigation technology. As stated in Annex 7:
Safe navigation relies on the ability of key personnel of the bridge team to easily
operate navigational equipment as well as to comprehend the information that is
presented to them. Without proper familiarization, which can sometimes take a
significant period of time due to the current differences between operating
systems, this is not always the case when someone is new to a particular setup.
Lack of familiarity with bridge equipment which can result in slow responses
due to not finding correct information, system, control function or alarm is
therefore likely to adversely affect safe navigation. (p. 23).
Annex 7 further describes specifics on the types of standardization that should be in
place, mentioning information display, such as symbols and colours (in relation with
MSC.191(79)); a standard layout for information presentation; as well as a standard
mode of operation that can be accessible with a single user action.
2.4.4 RCO 4: Automated and standardized ship-shore reporting
RCO 4 is related to S2.1, S2.2, S2.3, S2.4. It stipulates the automation of ship-shore
reporting through making information more easily accessible, in a user-friendly format.
It is referred on NAV. 59/6 and NCSR 1/28 that the automation of ship-shore reporting
17
is predicted to reduce workload, as forms are usually filled out manually by crew
members, and such paperwork often takes 2 hours to complete.
The proposed automation system would integrate and collect the data and information
needed for reporting. Additionally, since 2005 US established Electronic Notice of
Arrival/Departure (eNOA/D) that requires all vessels up to 300 GRT have to use for
in/out clearance in the US waterways. In Europe, the Facilitation Committee and the
European Commission have already begun developing a system for ship-shore reporting.
Europe SafeSeaNet (SSN) has established an Internet-based system to exchange the
information between different authorities, which has implemented by Norway and
Iceland (EMSA, 2012).
2.4.5 RCO 5: Improved reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems
RCO 5 is related to sub-solution 3.4. It outlines standards for enabling reliable Position
Navigation and Timing (PNT) data, which is derived from a ship’s position through the
Global Navigational Satellite Systems (GNSS), and looking at multiple position and
timing points to velocity, course, or speed over the ground. It goes without saying that
this information is crucial in navigation at sea.
RCO 5 emphasizes the importance of resilience and reliability of PNT data. Resilience is
defined as the system’s ability to compensate for disturbances in data collection, such as
malfunctions or breakdowns in the system. Increasing resilience of a PNT system does
not necessarily require setting up extra GNSS systems; but is instead achieved “through
a combination of existing space-based and terrestrial systems, modernized and future
radio navigation systems, ship-based sensors and other services.” (NAV. 59/6 p. 24).
Some of these systems include:
1. Inertial navigation systems;
2. Signals of opportunity, such as radio, radar, sonar, echo sounder, etc.;
18
3. Electronically-enabled human-observed bearings and distances (i.e. Modern
electronic coastal navigation using an e-pelorus, radar and ECDIS);
4. Autonomous celestial navigation; and
5. Other possibilities that could arise from research, for example in the areas of
defence and robotic vehicle navigation. (p. 24)
According to NAV. 59/6, reliability on the other hand, refers to the chance and
consistency at which the PNT system performs a function successfully under given
conditions, for a specified time. As discussed in the section on RCO 3, standardized user
interfaces and sets of functions would increase reliability, and ensure that all crew
members, internationally, could be trained using the same system.
2.4.6 RCO 6 Improved shore-based services
RCO 6 is related to S4.1.3 and solution S9 as it is stated in NAV. 59/6. The Maritime
Service Portfolio refers to a collection of information gathered by VTSs, ports, and other
stakeholders at shore. This information includes: “navigational warnings, incidents,
operations, tide, AIS, traffic regulations, chart updates, meteorological conditions, ice
conditions, etc.” (NCSR 1/28 p. 25).
In line with RCO 1, this information should be centralized, standardized, automated, and
easily accessible at all work stations. This information may be helpful in navigation,
and contrary to the paper-based delivery system used today, documents such as
Maritime Safety Information (MSI), should be made digitally available. Digitizing this
information would also allow for only voyage-relevant information to be shared with the
respective crew. In the current system, “the Officer of Watch (OOW) may potentially
receive several MSI messages daily, of which a large portion of the messages may not
be of concern to the voyage” (NCSR 1/28 p. 25). With all of this noise, it is easier to
miss critical voyage-relevant information, posing a safety risk. According to the RCO,
19
“the most appropriate platform to present MSI may be either the INS tasks route
monitoring and status and data display (resolution MSC.252(83)) or the ECDIS unit and
optionally on another navigational display.” (p. 25). In addition, as stated in Annex 7
NCSR 1/28:
Secondly, notices to mariners, updates to Electronic Navigation Chart (ENC) and
corrections to all nautical publications should be received electronically without
any delays in the delivery. Distribution via post is time consuming and may
introduce risks to the ships sailing in waters, for which the nautical charts are not
up to date. (p. 25).
Such information should be “fully integrated into the INS tasks route monitoring and
status and data display (resolution MSC.252(83)) or the ECDIS unit and optionally on
another navigational display” (p. 25). Updates and corrections should not have any file
type dependencies, and should not require manual transfer by an operator.
This will not only increase efficiency, but also reduce costs of operation. However,
important to note is that changes to operating procedures must be structured, involve
sufficient training regimes to manage the data information, and conducted in a logical,
standardized manner. Such changes should remain compatible with current systems, and
build on their foundation.
2.4.7 RCO 7 Bridge and workstation layout standardization
RCO 7 outlines standards for bridge and workstation layouts. It is only logical that
equipment layouts that do not consider workflow or utility adversely influence the
performance of marine navigation operations. While developments in ergonomic
workstation and bridge design exist, there are currently not standards for universal
implementation of such designs. As stated in the RCO;
20
Reference could be made to SOLAS regulation V/15 on Principles relating to
bridge design, design and arrangement of navigational systems and equipment
and bridge procedures, MSC/Circ.982 on Guidelines on Ergonomic Criteria for
Bridge Equipment and Layout, SN.1/Circ.265 on Guidelines on the Application
of SOLAS regulation V/15 to INS, IBS and bridge design, SN.1/Circ.288 on
Guidelines for bridge equipment and systems, their arrangement and integration
(BES) and ISO8468 on Ships Bridge layout and associated equipment. (p. 26).
In a similar way to standardization of information and system displays discussed in RCO
3, standardization of bridge designs would allow all crew members to undergo the same
training regime and increase collective familiarity with bride and workstation layout and
function.
2.5 Maritime Service Portfolio (MSP)
As stated in NAV 59/6, MSP is defined and described as “the set of operational and
technical services and their level of service provided by stakeholders in a given sea area,
waterway, or port, as appropriate. An MSP may also be interpreted as a set of “products”
provided by a stakeholder.” (p. 7). More specifically, as part of the improved provision
of services to vessels through e-Navigation, MSPs have been identified as the means of
providing electronic information in a harmonized way, which is part of solution 9. The
proposed list of MSPs is presented in table below. Further information about MSPs is set
out in annex 2 of NCSR 1/28, and annex 3 of NAV 59/6.
According to IMO NCSR 1/28, Annex 7 addresses the following six areas that have
been identified for the delivery of MSPs:
1. Port areas and approaches;
2. Coastal waters and confined or restricted areas;
3. Open sea and open areas;
21
4. Areas with offshore and/or infrastructure developments;
5. Polar areas; and
6. Other remote areas. (p. 10)
The following table gives an overview of the services and responsible service providers
outlined in the document:
No Identified Services Identified Responsible Service Provider
MSP 1 VTS Information Service
(IS)
VTS Authority
MSP 2 Navigational Helpance
Service (NAS)
National Competent VTS Authority/
Coastal or Port Authority
MSP 3 Traffic Organization Service
(TOS)
National Competent VTS Authority/
Coastal or Port Authority
MSP 4 Local Port Service (LPS) Local Port/Harbour Operator
MSP 5 Maritime Safety Information
Service (MSI)
National Competent Authority
MSP 6 Pilotage service Pilot Authority/Pilot Organization
MSP 7 Tugs Service Tug Authority
MSP 8 Vessel Shore Reporting National Competent Authority,
Ship-owner/Operator/Master
MSP 9 Telemedical Helpance
Service (TMAS)
National Health Organization/dedicated
Health Organization
MSP 10 Maritime Helpance
Service (MAS)
Coastal/Port Authority/Organization
MSP 11 Nautical Chart Service National Hydrographic Authority/
Organization
MSP 12 Nautical Publications National Hydrographic Authority/
22
Service Organization
MSP 13 Ice Navigation Service National Competent Authority
Organization
MSP 14 Meteorological Information
Service
National Meteorological Authority/WMO/
Public Institutions
MSP 15 Rea-time Hydrographic and
Environmental Information
Service
National Hydrographic and
Meteorological Authorities
MSP 16 Search and Rescue Service SAR Authorities
Table 2. Type of Services and Service Provider of MSP (Annex 7 NCSR 1/28)
23
3. METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE E-NAVIGATION
MODUS OPERANDI
3.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the research methodology and how it has guided data collection,
analysis, and development of the theory. Subsequently, data collection procedures are
illustrated and discussed in-depth to get an overview of the entire process. This is
followed by limitations which were encountered during the interview. Finally, it presents
a brief discussion on qualitative techniques used to analyze the data collected.
3.2 Qualitative method
Comprehensive literature review comprising of peer reviewed journals covering
e-Navigation were consulted. Besides, participation of the key stakeholders such as the
IMO, IALA, and maritime administrations formed part of the study. They included
publications on the internet, conventions, and regulations that are related to e-Navigation
or impacted by it. The major benefit of qualitative type of study is attributed by
versatility of information, and the diverse data that can be collected through interview
instruments.
Lützhöft (2004) asserts that questionnaires are expensive to administer and yield little
that can be used pragmatically. She also pointed out that “quantitative data may be
useful in measuring attitude across a large sample, but paper interviews perform a
powerful framework to learn about individual’s perception based on their skills,
24
knowledge, and experiences” (Lützhöft, 2004, p. 17-20). Marshall and Rossman (1999)
discussed the characteristics of qualitative methods, such as valuing participant’s
perspectives, focusing on everyday life experiences, enquiry and primary descriptions.
Through qualitative research, this dissertation involves the responses emanating from the
experiences of the participants. The researcher transcribed interviews and analyzed
them on a comparative and narrative basis to bring out the complexity of the work
situation.
3.3 Interview and data source
The most important reason for using this method is traceability of facts regarding
e-Navigation. One aspect of consideration is interviewing people with facts and versatile
knowledge in the area of concern. In order to get an in-depth understanding of the topic,
it is crucial to interview experts in this area. For example, the investigations in the frame
of ACCSEAS project have shown that sometimes even lectures and instructors were not
aware of what e-Navigation means (Baldauf, 2015).
For that reason, the interview candidates were selectively chosen with the goal of
obtaining detailed and informative responses. Patton (2002) has described the concept of
purposeful sampling comprehensively. He stated that:
The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information-rich
cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can
learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry,
thus the term purposeful sampling. Studying information-rich cases yields
insights and in-depth understanding rather than empirical generalizations (p. 230,
emphasis in original).
For this dissertation, the researcher did the interviews of key personnel who have been
instrumental to the processes of e-Navigation. Members of international maritime
25
organizations such as IALA, IMO, The Nautical Institute, CIRM, and officials of the
maritime administrations were invited to participate. The participants selected come
from countries such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Republic of
Korea, United Kingdom, United States, Singapore, and Sweden. The researcher found
the interview candidates through WMU and IMO networking, as well as the candidate’s
publication on e-Navigation development, articles in academic journals, professional
magazines on internet, and e-Navigation seminars. During the research, a total of 23
experts/stakeholders were chosen for interviews; 14 out of 23 participants confirmed
their participation by sending back their answers via email.
The online interviews were conducted via email during May – August 2017. To achieve
this, interview questions were emailed to individual participant for responses.
Opdenakker (2006) affirms that email communication has enumerable advantages
compared to other mode of collecting data. One, confidentiality of information is highly
respected hence improving the reliability. Additionally, it facilitates wider coverage of
respondents irrespective of geographic separation. Further, through this method, the
researcher can accurately develop and standardize the questions, and less disturbance is
witnessed hence efficiency to present the best responses possible from the participant.
Moreover, the researcher divided the interview questions into five sections bearing two
parts: background review and technical and/or working conditions. For background
review, the interviewee described their professional background in the maritime industry
and its relation mainly to e-Navigation. The question also instructed them to list their
publications (e.g. journal articles, seminar presentations or reports) on e-Navigation, and
indicate the level of their own e-Navigation technical abilities. This part of the interview
helped the researcher to find out on-sea experience or skill in ship navigation. On the
technical and/or working condition’s part, the interview questions were divided into four
sections that related to e-Navigation: shore side, ship side, non-SOLAS vessels and
26
e-Navigation in general. This helped the researcher understand the works of the
e-Navigation from several different perspectives.
Apart from the e-mail interview questions, the researcher also had informal interviews
with maritime users, experts and scholars in some particular fields relevant to the topic
for example cyber security. Personal notes were recorded for comparison with the
interview result and SIP to get more understanding on e-Navigation works. Results will
be shown in chapter 4.
Consequently, analysis of data collected from the interviews and SIP was conducted to
arrive at solutions to the problem statement. Along, it generated conclusions and
recommendations. Notably the analysis was conducted based on interviewee’s personal
experiences with e-Navigation, the SIP established by the IMO, and personal notes. The
limitations and benefits of e-Navigation for the maritime field and stakeholders will be
shown in chapter 5.
3.4 Narrative analysis
Interview questions offered as little guidance as possible to allow the interviewees to
talk about what was of importance to them within the given context. The researcher then
extracted those phenomena or significant experiences of the interviewee as a
construction to developing a theory using narrative analysis. Boréus and Bergström
(2017) discussed narrative analysis as a viable way to organize and gain insights of
participants in social science research, which is why narrative analysis is the primary
tool used for the interview responses in this dissertation.
Additionally, Riessman (2008) supported this method with emphases on interviewing
and the process of transcribing interviews as data for narrative inquiry. Labov (1969)
described five key components of such narratives (as cited in Boréus & Bergström,
2017):
27
1. An abstract (summary of the event);
2. Orientation (time, place, situation, participants);
3. Complicating action (sequence of events);
4. Resolution (tells what finally happened);
5. Coda (returns the perspective to the present).
According to Kisser (1996), the value of the narrative analysis is “privileged human
agency and it deals with particular and the specific, rather than the collective and
statistical” (as cited in Boréus and Bergström, 2017, p. 124). Moreover, Robertson
(2000) and Feldman and Almquist (2012) pointed out some of benefits of using narrative
approach, stating that a “narrative attunes the analyst to nuance, helping us see things
that would be overlooked in more technical readings, and making us aware of absences
as well as presences” (as cited in Boréus and Bergström, 2017, p. 124). For the current
study, the researcher also used the categorical-content approach as a mode of reading
narratives. Lieblich et al. (1998) defined this mode focus on “the content of narratives as
manifested in separated parts of the story, regardless of the context of the complete
story” (as cited in Boréus and Bergström, 2017, p. 131).
3.5 Ethical considerations and limitation of the methodology
Although the interview method has many benefits, there are some limitations as well.
For example, on occasion participants may have difficulty understanding the context of
the question. In these instances, the researcher must respectfully bring them back to the
content. But, in an online interview conducted by email, there are added challenges for
the interviewer and the participant to connect directly in order to pursue follow up
clarifications, especially when the participants are not in the same country/time-zone.
There were also some unforeseen obstacles for this methodology, particularly in terms of
varying response quality. For instance, for some questions, several participants answered
28
in great detail, but others gave quick answers or comments that did not really address
some part of question properly. Lastly, some participants were not willing to answer.
Marshall (2016) mentioned that face to face interviews are more impactful since
clarification are done there and then. In hindsight, perhaps, face to face interview would
have afforded the researcher a better opportunity to mitigate some of the aforementioned
issues. Nevertheless, the online interview has some advantages, and the decreased cost
and lowered potential for participant distraction made this methodology a sound choice
for the current study.
However, given the exploratory purpose of the study, these limitations do not pose any
foreseen issues for the credibility and relevance of the findings. The limitations did not
hamper the data collection process, as the methodology of this dissertation was carefully
considered and designated prudently prior to implementation. There were no concerns
with attrition and subject variability that could impede external validation of the results.
29
4. ANALYSIS OF E-NAVIGATION MODUS OPERANDI
4.1 Introduction
The IMO has set up a project named e-Navigation that shall coordinate harmonized
collection, integration and exchange of information on board and ashore. This is enacted
electronically to control berth to berth navigation. The overall implication is beefing up
the safety of navigation hence minimizing perils. In addition, SIP also pointed out that
the relevant requirements for commercial communication links for e-Navigation should
have certain availability and latency criteria for the defined service area. Withal, it
should provide a two-way data communication channel and enabling acknowledgement
of information delivery. Therefore, it could enable automatic quality assurance of
service efficiency, availability in coverage of the communication service, and the ship
borne communication installation and capability. It is expected that new equipment and
processes will be adopted to realize e-Navigation globally, eventually integrating all
ships and shore infrastructures into the e-Navigation concept. To understand how it
works, the figure no 2 and 3, will help to picturing the e-Navigation architecture
provided by IMO and also can be visualized by the 7 pillars concept.
30
Figure 2. E-Navigation architecture (Annex 7 of NCSR 1/28 page 18)
Figure 3. The 7 pillars of e-Navigation (ACCSEAS Feasibility Study of R-Mode using
MF DGPS Transmissions Report 1.0 / 7.03.2014)
31
Furthermore, in a real life of e-Navigation implementation, there will be ships that are
fully integrated, others partly integrated, and for a while many that are not at all. There
will be ships with SOLAS, and others with non-SOLAS. Hence, the researcher
categorized the questions in the interview into three perspectives to get clear
understanding of e-Navigation; shore, SOLAS ship, and non-SOLAS vessel.
4.2 E-Navigation. How does it work?
4.2.1 Ashore
MSC 85/26/Add.1, annex 20, point number 4, described the shore-based related part of
e-Navigation as:
The management of vessel traffic information and related services from ashore
enhanced through better provision, coordination, and exchange of comprehensive
data in formats that will be more easily understood and utilized by shore-based
operators in support of vessel safety and efficiency (p. 2).
E-Navigation requires standards and protocols that enable routing and sharing of data
between actors and infrastructures. The concept must prevent duplication of information
and ensure that the information is received in completely and reliable. Sea operations are
very sensitive in any country. Any pertinent information should be shared according to
standard operating procedures without violating any law. Accurate information is
therefore a requirement which cannot be ignored. In order for the vessel to navigate
safely, information has to be relayed from different sources. In the infrastructure ashore,
it will likely use radar, AIS, VDES LRIT, ship database, and SAR. This information
may include services for position or route advice, schedules and instructions for arrival,
pilotage and tugs service, search and rescue, maritime safety information or traffic
information, etc. It is worth noting that even the operators of the vessels such as ship
32
need to communicate information to control department. Regular updates are required to
ascertain security of the ship.
Moreover, e-Navigation is designed to provide 16 services that are addressed as MSP’s.
To facilitate e-Navigation ashore, collaborative maritime community systems that are
able to route information from its source and deliver to the intended users is required.
The general objective is to improve and to enhance the efficiency of the services. In
addition, the development of shore based systems towards e-Navigation has been
established prior to the SIP was conceived. For instance, few projects by the European
Community such as Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information System (VTMIS-Net,
SafeSeaNet (SSN), Sea Traffic Management (STM) which is a project developed and
conducted by Sweden, and ACCSEAS, a 3-year project which is completed in 2015, to
name a few. These projects are aiming at enhancing the safety of maritime traffic by
minimizing navigational risk. Meanwhile, among others, in Asia Region, Republic of
Korea established the SMART-Navigation in order to implement e-Navigation on
smaller vessels. Moreover, Hong (2016) conducted a research study on the effect of
e-Navigation on reducing vessel accidents using SMART navigation concept.
These projects are in order to study and further develop the of e-Navigation services
possibilities, despite the fact that the technology keep moving on. However, the
information required will need to be integrated digitalized and be of high quality for all
stakeholders. For instance, five interviewees (35%, n=14) stated that ENC streaming
service will be considered as a reliable and resilient connectivity for the communication
link. Currently, IHO has been working to increase ENC availability and it is hoped that
the framework will be in line with the upcoming IALA standard for e-Navigation
technical services.
According to IALA (2015) report of e-Navigation architecture ENAV17-10.4.2, the
architectural analysis prompts succinct education to have an overview of complete
33
operation of e-Navigation. The operators and other peripheral Helpants should undergo
training that would enable them coordinate the entire process with ease. (IALA, 2015).
Nevertheless, even though two interviewees indicated that the operators ashore will
likely have a different type of operator than a traditional VTS operator, most of the
interviewees are agree that HCD should provide an easy way to engage with the
operators. Since e-Navigation will be to a great extend machine to machine, therefore
the operators here will be expected to have a sufficient technical knowledge in order to
keep the competences and have capacity to deal with the new technologies and to be
able to recognize problems and act correctly, even in a case when a problem might
occurs. In the overall e-Navigation concept this is also true for the operator both ashore
and on board.
However, it seems every country will have a different arrangement regarding
e-Navigation concept (see also chapter 5!). Interviewees asserted during the interview
that some coastal states won’t be capable of afford sophisticated level of e-Navigation
information service, besides it will takes time to upgrade their systems and not every
coastal state will need to provide all MSP. Therefore, it is essential that traditional and
e-Navigation methods must be complimentary as they will have to work side by side.
4.2.2 On board
According to MSC 85/26, annex 20, paragraph 4, described on board-based related part
of e-Navigation as:
Navigation systems benefit from the integration of own ship sensors, supporting
information, a standard user interface, and a comprehensive system for managing
guard zones and alerts. Core elements of such a system will require, actively
engaging the mariner in the process of navigation to carry out his/her duties in a
most efficient manner, while preventing distraction and overburdening (p. 02).
34
The vessels are always in need of the latest information on board to alert the mariner
when necessary in order to ensure safe navigation. On board the vessel will likely use
official nautical charts and publications, and SOLAS standard equipment like e.g. radar,
AIS, and LRIT communications. Provision of information such as chart correction,
weather forecasts, passage planning / route advice, MSI, must enable the bridge team to
easily operate navigational equipment as well as comprehend the information that is
presented to them. More and more vessels are being equipped with IBS that provide the
possibility to route information to the consoles or equipment requiring it at specific time.
These vessels could be considered e-Navigation compliant provided there is a portal to
exchange data through a suitable data communication carrier. Beside the onboard
processes, the e-Navigation concept also contains a component that requires vessels to
provide information to other vessels and to actors ashore.
Furthermore, e-Navigation facilitates machine to machine communication which
eliminates, the certain extent, the need of human intervention. The Officer of the Watch
(OOW) is assumed in the e-Navigation environment in the future will only has to know
that the equipment is functioning and how to retrieve the data he needs from the
equipment. Because every ship has different equipment on their navigational bridge,
thorough familiarization is needed for the operator. This fact is supported by the
investigation in the project of ACCSEAS Training Needs Analysis Report (Baldauf,
2015). Further, one interviewee stated that in the future e-Navigation reality, there will
be a quality indicator to inform the mariner. So the information received can be trusted
and is correct. But when there is a conflicting information from different source, the
competence of the mariners (Master/OOW) will still be needed and especially
challenged in such cases. During the interview, it was found that the professional
judgment will be used to handle this situation which is sourced mostly from the
mariner’s experiences. If the mariners can use the data information correctly and
properly, it is assumed that the e-Navigation concept will have a positive impact on the
35
ship’s performance as well. For instance, the ship will navigate more safely and OOW
will have more time to maximize his duty. But, on the other hand, it is also questionable
whether the mariners will use the information received or not. The final decision will be
with them. A generally good Bridge Team Management (BTM) and the competences of
the mariners are expected from the interview’s result, this is an intrinsic key component
for implementation of e-Navigation functions.
4.2.3 The role of communication between ship to ship, ship to shore, shore to ship, and
shore to shore
According to the definition given in “Vision of e-Navigation” point 4 MSC 85/26 annex
20, communication is described as: “an infrastructure providing authorized seamless
information transfer on board ship, between ships, between ship and shore and between
shore authorities and other parties with many related benefits” (p.2).
E-Navigation will support the seamless communication. Nevertheless, a proper
communication infrastructure is required both aboard and ashore to exchange data. As
such, e-Navigation lends itself to data exchange systems by satellite, or terrestrial VDES
services. Presently VDES is evolving and is expected to enable data to be exchanged
terrestrially when a vessel is in range of ashore station, whilst long range e-Navigation
communication between ship and shore or ship to ship will use satellite communication
services. Therefore, VDES is about to be integrated in the communication link. To
understand the concept of operation by VDES, figure no.4 will give a brief description.
36
Figure 4. Concept Operation by VDES (Source. IALA)
However, there are very different volume capabilities of data exchange via satellite
services depending on the communication equipment on the vessel. As such
e-Navigation services and data requirements have to be designed either;
1. Around the less sophisticated vessels to ensure that all vessels have the same
information.
Or,
2. To provide information that is based on the sophistication of each vessel, but
using a protocol that ensures that important information is received by all vessels
when the opportunity arises.
37
5. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
E-NAVIGATION
5.1 Introduction
Following Chapter 4 that gave us an understanding of how e-Navigation works, this
chapter discusses the impact of e-Navigation for the maritime world, from the
perspective of the researcher and the different kinds of stakeholders that are represented
by the 14 interviewees. Moreover, the interviewees’ e-Navigation technical knowledge
is divided into these categories: basic, intermediate, and advanced. The percentage of
participants with each e-Navigation skill level is shown in the pie chart below.
Figure 5. Statistic of participants’ e-Navigation technical knowledge
38
In addition, 9 out of 14 interviewees considered their technical knowledge advanced and
have a sea going experience. All interviewees (100%, n=14) were working directly in
the development of e-Navigation also had released some publications in academic
journals or magazine articles as well as presentations at e-Navigation seminars organized
by IALA or IMO. The number of participants involved in these endeavors is shown in
Figure 6 below.
Figure 6. Distribution of category of interviewee professional background
Furthermore, these statistics indicate that the interviewees who participated in this
research study were very knowledgeable and well-experienced. More than half of the
total sample are participating in working groups of IALA or IMO (71%, n=14).
Therefore, their comments on the interview are considered a crucial input for this
dissertation. Interestingly, the interviewees also shared some facts in the real field that
were not yet obvious in the other related documents or research so far.
39
5.2 Identified shortcomings
There are a number of shortcomings that range from the human element and technology
restrictions to the loss or equivalence of quality information among all actors that share
the seas. Lately, Integrated Bridge Systems are commonly used at sea. Coastal States are
implementing uniform methods of processing information and evolving better systems
for intercommunication to improve awareness and dissemination of the state of the art of
e-Navigation. However, at the implementation level, various challenges arise, as
discussed below.
5.2.1 The problem of data / information integrity.
One opportunity for error occurs when using e-Navigation technology to inform the
vessel when a waypoint is reached. However, if the waypoints had been set into the
system incorrectly, this could result in a serious casualty.
Not all vessels need the same level of information depending on their voyage status,
operational character, and differing regulatory regime. Six interviewees (42%, n=14)
mentioned that if vessels in the same area have “different” information (e.g. one vessel
has the current information and the others do not, or all but one vessel is up-to-date) due
to their onboard equipment capabilities onboard, a risk of casualty is created. The
responses gathered from the interviews showed that the development of e-Navigation
should offer all vessels the same quality and accuracy of the services to minimize the
risk of casualty. Some standards to certify the quality are ongoing, for instance Software
Quality Assurance developed by IMO and Standard Software Maintenance of Shipboard
Equipment developed by BIMCO and CIRM. However, all interviewees strongly agreed
it is foreseen that not all vessels will receive the same latest information offered by the
concept as it is being designed today.
40
At this point, many participants identified that delays or inaccuracies in the latest
information could place vessels in problematic situations, or even danger. For example,
one interviewee stated,
First, data communication delays can create situations in dynamic areas that
could result in conflicts due to updates not being received in time. This would be
the case with just-in-time arrival technology as a significant delay in a changed
arrival time might mean two ships arrive at the same time, causing congestion.
Secondly, unverified decision support services could provide wrong suggestions
that could result in an accident.
Interestingly, another three interviewees expressed a similar answer like the statement
above. The first interviewee stated, “if ENC updating is not proper or providing wrong
information, the ship can be led into dangerous situations. If updating is delayed
because of a malfunctions of shore system. It causes wrong decision-making on a
vessel”. Correspondingly, a second interviewee remarked, “more over non-compliant
vessels may be unprepared for a severe danger such as Tropical Revolving Storm, due to
information delay”. Furthermore, a third interviewee stated that an accident might
happen due to “erroneous information which would draw attention from safety
administrations and would halt development due to fear of poor implementation. All
efforts must be done to ensure the info being promulgated by Government authorities is
correct”.
Indeed, not all vessels will be equipped to participate in the e-Navigation concept;
enforcement of e-Navigation for all vessels is not possible due to the limitations of
SOLAS. Flag states have the responsibility to ensure that their vessels of all sizes have
an e-Navigation awareness. Moreover, not all coastal states will provide all e-Navigation
services, and the provision of such is dependent on the states’ capabilities and needs.
Three interviewees mentioned the e-Navigation implementation can be handled
41
differently by each country (different port service, different vessel, etc.). This nonuniformity is recognized as one of biggest challenges of e-Navigation. The stakeholders
will need to face this challenge and address it using a suitable “handshake” protocol to
ensure smooth transitions and cooperation between maritime users and the competences
of the mariner. Therefore, it seems clear that this issue creates the possibility of
inequality in the quality of services offered by the coastal authorities. This contrasts the
main benefits of e-Navigation to promote and enhance the safety through improved
decision support (MSC 85/26 Annex 20).
5.2.2 No acknowledgement of information being received by the operator.
The interview results revealed that one important aspect to be considered is the receipt
or acknowledgement function of the concept. All interviewees agreed that e-Navigation
so far does not acknowledge messages sent. This concern was elicited by asking “How
will the operator know whether all vessels have received the information?”. It is
important to know the status of the information, particularly when information is critical.
This potential deficit can be resolved by having a message acknowledgment that can be
recorded within a journal database shared by all stakeholders.
As recognized by the interview results, a receipt function is greatly needed in
e-Navigation, and one interviewee noted this also can be effective in closed-loop
communication (CLC), which is a technique where a recipient repeats back a message
from the sender. CLC may work to avoid misunderstandings between the sender and the
receiver, but it would entail massive duplication of information, which could be cost
prohibitive for satellite communication services and utilize precious bandwidth.
According to Chan and Özgüner (1995), there are many systems needed to implement
closed loop control through a communication network. Due to remote sensor, actuator
and processor locations, the operators both ashore and onboard need to know whether
the information is received and correct, and if the system has a problem. Such exposition
42
gives the mariner the chance to seek for alternative. This function could be available in
e-Navigation to enhance situational awareness for some modus operandi.
Another consideration is the possibility of components of the system breaking-down,
even though e-Navigation systems are expected to be resilient and reliable. Examples of
malfunction may range from deficiencies of onboard equipment and interference of
sunspots with GNSS to the failure of a critical satellite payload. The question of
whether the machine or the mariner can recognize when such an event occurs has not
been sufficiently addressed by the interviews thus far. Are there robust systems planned
that will alert a mariner when such an occasion arises, and provide measures to correct
them? This is a serious challenge within the e-Navigation concept.
5.2.3 Loss of the traditional skills
Traditional skills of mariners have been tried and tested over generations. Because
e-Navigation practices provide the processes to alert a mariner if they are not
functioning correctly, there is a risk that the operator might be over-dependent on
automated systems and lose their traditional skills. From the interviewees’ outlooks,
some degree of automation on the bridge will not require a skilled OOW to maintain 24
hours of watch.
Additionally, five interviewees confirmed the convenience of e-Navigation concept
introduced over reliance and satisfaction on automated systems for mariners, hence
leading to the loss of situational awareness, and over time, traditional navigation skills.
Mariners who used the traditional way had opportunities to check the progress of route
planning and could cross-reference the position of waypoints with the planned course as
the voyage proceeded. Meanwhile, reliance on e-Navigation that provides high
reliability and integrity of data and information might cause the mariner to not look out
43
the window or check the radar anymore to correlate information presented with what is
observed due to overreliance on the systems.
5.2.4 Two tier society
By implementing e-Navigation in maritime society, there will be ships that are fully
integrated, others partly integrated, and, for a while, many that are not at all integrated
with the concept. Moreover, there will be ships with SOLAS, and others with nonSOLAS. The result of this inevitably unequal environment will create a two tiered
maritime society: the compliant vessels and the non-compliant vessels. If the compliant
vessels are using services from a VTS (alternative course, or speed optimization) and
have not recognized that a small vessel that is not AIS or e-Navigation equipped, and so
would not be recognized by the VTS, is in their vicinity, it is possible that over reliance
on e-Navigation tools could lead to an incident.
E-Navigation compliant vessels would be expected to possess satellite communications
enabling them to have intermittent or continuous communication from the ship to the
global e-Navigation service providers. The onboard systems would be able to interface
and receive nautical updates to be installed seamlessly within onboard systems, and
other specific information could be requested to update systems and knowledge as
required by the bridge team. This would be a top-level e-Navigation scenario. However,
other vessels would have only the occasional ability, if any, to receive data rich
information by satellite, and may not be able to update any onboard systems due to the
unavailability of suitable interfaces. These non-compliant vessels, therefore, will only be
able to update their knowledge by using NAVTEX or other traditional radio
communication services, and, as such, will not have the same quality or quantity of
information as the e-Navigation compliant vessels.
44
This means that chart corrections may be updated on one vessel, and missing on another
just a mile away. Safety of navigation information would be automatically displayed on
the compliant vessel without any human intervention, but on the non-compliant vessel,
the operator would have to manually search for information through printed or
handwritten paperwork, or data displayed on a screen. The non-compliant vessel may
likely not have the information at all. In the worst case, two vessels of similar sizes
could be provided with information that could lead one into danger, and the other to
safety. It could be said that there is no e-Navigation for the non-compliant vessel, and as
such they would proceed with very little planning. However, there is no reason, except
maybe royalties, as to why the compliant vessel could not automatically update some of
the information to the non-compliant vessel using simple “handshake” protocols
(IALA), standardized databases (IHO), and VDES (IMO / IALA).
5.2.5 Worst case scenario
During the research, interviewees were asked to give examples of the worst case
scenario if e-Navigation failed. Apart from the shortcomings mentioned above, some
interviewees identified concerns such scenarios in which information could be
compromised by inconsistencies or threats to cyber security . For instance, one
interviewee stated,
A real danger is that regional (rather than internationally-agreed) e-navigation
solutions will be implemented, particularly ashore, and in isolation from other
providers in the region. The aim should be to implement harmonized solutions,
as far as practicable. We should not get to a situation where, like prior to the
1970s, there were some thirty different maritime buoyage systems in existence.
This is detrimental to safety.
45
Meanwhile, two other interviewees mentioned the topic of cyber security. One of them
stated, “hacking and manipulation of information can mislead vessels. It is important to
develop the right level of cybersecurity, learning from other relevant industry. But not
overkill because that will reduce the benefit of e-navigation”. Another noted that
developers may “fail to ensure sufficient quality in the software used for the
fundamental e-Navigation infrastructure, which could make the whole thing break down
due to a logical error or hacking.
5.2.6 Non-compliance possibility of non-SOLAS vessel within e-Navigation
When considering the above factors related to the kind of communication and onboard
infrastructure needed to handle e-Navigation information, it is clear that state of the art
communication and routing systems are required. SOLAS vessels have a required
minimum for communication aids fit on them. With the changing trends of information
needs in maritime sector, all SOLAS vessels might can be e-Navigation compliant. On
the other hand, non-SOLAS vessels may or may not be fitted with appropriate
equipment. It has been a common issue that non-SOLAS vessels may find it difficult to
keep up with the latest technology of e-Navigation equipment, simply because of the
cost or the perspective of necessity. Prior to e-Navigation, all vessels, regardless of size
or complexity, had the same opportunity to source information in their way. With
e-Navigation, this is no longer the case and non e-Navigation compliant vessels,
especially non-SOLAS vessels, risk becoming outdated. Being able to take advantage of
the e-Navigation world for non-SOLAS vessels is worth the cost incurred.
Furthermore, some interviewees agreed that all the ships, including non-SOLAS vessels,
should receive the same data quality to mitigate the risk of casualty. VDES, which is
currently evolving within IALA, will provide terrestrial and satellite data connections.
One interviewee mentioned the possibility of extending the terrestrial range of
communication using ad-hoc networking and updating each onboard system bulletin
46
board as a possible solution to enable all vessels to have equal information. It is
important to understand the risks of having different quality of information sharing, and
the needs of the non-SOLAS community within the e-Navigation are being recognized.
So far, South Korea has been working on a project called SMART navigation that is
expected to service the non-SOLAS vessel. Moreover, Hong (2016) discussed briefly the
SMART navigation service for non-SOLAS vessel and its implementation of
e-Navigation on reducing vessel accident.
5.3 Identified benefits
When it comes to the positive impact, many researchers have made efforts and
observations. An article that published in the February 2009 edition of Seaways by The
Nautical Institute pose five main benefits, shown in the table below:
No Impact How
1 Improved safety through
promotion of standards
in safe navigation
Improved decision support, enabling the mariner and
competent authorities ashore to select relevant
unambiguous information pertinent to the prevailing
circumstances
Reduction in human error through the provision of
automatic indicators, warnings, and fail-safe methods
Improved coverage and availability of consistent
quality electronic navigational charts (ENCs)
47
Introduction of standardized equipment with an SMode* option, but without restricting the
manufacturers’ ability to innovate
Enhanced navigation system resilience, leading to
improved reliability and integrity
Better integration of ship and shore-based systems,
leading to better utilization of all human resources
2 Better environmental
protections
Improved navigation safety as above, thereby
reducing the risk of collisions and groundings, in
addition to the associated spillages and pollution
Reduced emissions by using optimum routes and
speeds
Enhanced ability and capacity in responding to and
handling emergencies, such as oil spills.
3 Augmented security Enabling silent operation mode for shore-based
stakeholders’ domain surveillance and monitoring.
4 Higher efficiency and
reduced costs
Global standardization and type approval of
equipment augmented by a ‘fast track’ change
management process (in relation to technical
standards for equipment)
48
Automated and standardized reporting procedures,
leading to reduced administrative overhead
Improved bridge efficiency, allowing watchkeepers
to maximize time for keeping a proper lookout and
to embrace existing good practice, such as using
more than one method to ascertain the ship’s position.
Integrating systems that are already in place,
precipitating the efficient and coherent use of new
equipment that meets all user requirements
5 Improved human
resource
management
Enhancing the experience and status of the bridge
team.
Table 3. Benefits of e-Navigation (Adapted from the Nautical Institute, 2009)
Table 3 clearly presents the benefits of the concept. Moreover, the positive implications
of embracing e-Navigation are further increased by the elimination of human errors. The
process takes place electronically, which guarantees efficiency in the output. Human
services are sometimes prone to mistakes, which might render the operations futile.
Consideration of this fact could provide evidence of unfathomable costs of casualty that
are saved by e-Navigation. This in turn mitigates:
· The potential for human error when updating information onboard a vessel.
· The provision of incorrect information to actors ashore or onboard other
vessels.
49
To illustrate, the following scenarios provide more tangible effects of using incorrect
information during navigation processes. Take for example a port that is preparing to
receive a vessel. If actors ashore at the port receives inaccurate information, the port or
other services may find themselves unready for the vessel’s arrival, which could lead to
unsafe conditions or inappropriate arrival instructions that could lead to a disaster. For
instance, if the vessel sent information of its draft indicating the vessel was less deep
than it was, the Pilot or VTS might inform the vessel to use a channel that was not
appropriate for the vessel. If the area had hard seabed, then this could lead to damage to
the hull, pollution, and loss of life. Similarly, if historic information was used because a
mariner was not aware of later information, subsequent actions could lead to a vessel
arriving in an inappropriate window, whereby the vessel could endanger itself and
others. an inappropriate window, whereby the vessel could endanger itself and others.
Apart from the aforementioned benefits, interviewees also identified several key
contributions to safety from e-Navigation systems. For example, one interviewee
suggested that such technology reduces the complexity of integrated systems and
improves the design of navigation and communication systems, while others noted that
e-Navigation could increase situational awareness by all stakeholders and may provide
information that is amiable and user-friendly. Similarly, one interviewee mentioned that
e-Navigation is effective to address the issues of distraction and language barriers
among VTS operators, while another stated that the e-Navigation concept can contribute
to monitoring and warning mariners of deviations from the ship’s intended path.
Additionally, one interviewee expressed, “since the information registered is machine to
machine, therefore, it will remove the possibility of errors and misinterpreted, and that
information will be timely, efficiently, and reliable manner globally” .
50
5.4 Discussion on the shortcomings and benefits of e-Navigation
Over the past 20 years, vessels have become more and more dependent on technology to
sail in the oceans. “Greater” technology within navigation and communication systems
is evolving faster. As dependence grew on technology to reference the vessels position,
and plan its routes, it was soon evident that, unless the human component of the system
regularly updated the systems and applied corrections to them, the accuracy of the
vessels could degrade substantially. The human can become a weak link. Casualties
have occurred because of poor design or missing updates to these electronic systems and
services.
Moreover, there is now an over dependence on GNSS and subsequently e-Navigation, as
it is used for the timing of information, the location of vessels, the coloration of position,
and timing for navigation. There has been a recent trend of following a screen rather
than orientating the progress of a vessel by lights, shapes and topography of the
coastline. E-Navigation is expected to provide not just the automatic update of systems
aboard for navigation, but also the tools for route planning, corrections, navigation
warnings, and other information critical for safety in navigation without any intervention
of the navigator. However, these automated practices can lead to the possibility of the
mariner losing orientation skills that would previously have allowed them to identify an
error. Though e-Navigation is the future of planning and executing voyages around the
planet, it inevitably leads to a loss of seamanship orientation by the bridge watchkeeping officer. It remains that human operators need to be trained well to maintain their
skill levels and use the information correctly.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a clear benefit to the coastal state and vessels that trade
in their surrounding area to reduce casualties, pollution, and loss of life, as well as
improving efficiency of the port environment. However, the benefits of e-Navigation
will be restricted mostly to large commercial vessels that are covered by SOLAS, and
51
the implementation of e-Navigation might risk leading to an imbalance of the quality of
information and processes used between vessels in proximity of each other. To avoid
such discrimination, and to ensure that all vessels are able to be served with the same
quality of information, all coastal and onboard services must allow non e-Navigation
compliant vessels to continue to have the same opportunity to source information in their
way for the purpose of vessels lacking the new invention. This inevitably means that,
unless the cost benefit of e-Navigation included non e-Navigation compliant vessels,
which most waterborne vessels will be, either the shore infrastructure and personnel
required for non e-Navigation compliant vessels will have to continue in parallel to the
provision of e-Navigation services, or e-Navigation compliance has to be extended to the
non-SOLAS community without any financial burden to this community.
In conclusion, all risks that are observed within this dissertation should be considered
within the comprehensive view of the future development of e-Navigation. Lützhöft
(2004) stated that new technology could possibly create new types of accidents if it is
not properly designed. Furthermore, this finding was supported by Weintrit (2016), who
says:
If current technological advances continue without proper coordination, there is a
risk that the future development of marine navigation systems will be hampered
through a lack of standardization onboard and ashore, incompatibility between
vessels and an increased and unnecessary level of complexity (p. 568).
Patraiko, Wake, and Weintrit (2010) also stated that “e-Navigation systems should be
designed to engage and motivate the user while managing workload” (p.14). This is a
difficult task and will need remarkable research and testing to accomplish.
52
5.5 Consideration for potential future direction on e-Navigation
E-Navigation has to ensure that all sea users are brought up to a common standard of
service without large cost to the small vessels, of which there are several million
globally. Currently, e-Navigation addresses only a small number of users, given that
they are responsible for the world’s trade and use very large, sophisticated vessels. As
such, the community has a responsibility to provide the networking ability to ensure that
less sophisticated vessels are able to share in the state of the art information
e-Navigation compliant vessels enjoy. Even though not all information will be needed
for non-SOLAS vessels, one must consider the risk of grounding or collision that could
occur if vessels are inequitably equipped for e-Navigation.
Lastly, there is recognition that training is needed even though the e-Navigation
proposed provides usable HCD based on user needs. The training will be likely nontechnical because the operator is expected to have the appropriate technical skills upon
operation; the familiarization and knowledge to manage the information are more
important training topics for the human operator. As one interviewee noted:
It is vital that the human being is always central to decision-making onboard.
Machines should be left to do what machines are good at – processing lots of
data / information rapidly and error-free. But where judgement, experience and
‘gut feel’ are required, the human element is paramount. Learnings from a
number of accidents suggest that the more the automation, the more humans
must be trained to do. The human element needs to have a developed
understanding of the level of automation and be capable of understanding
automation processes.
5.6 S-Mode
The concept of Standard Mode or ‘S-Mode’ was first proposed to IMO by the Nautical
Institute in 2010. According to Patraiko, Wake, and Weintrit (2010), S-Mode uses a
53
standard presentation, menu, and interface as the default for onboard e-Navigation
displays in the proposed system. It may also allow for the use of personal settings stored
within the system or on a personal memory device so that a pilot or mariner could
quickly configure their preferred or personalized settings, overlay custom features on the
display, or provide access to specialist information (p.12-14). Therefore, IMO
mentioned S-Mode in document NAV 59/6 Annex 1, particularly in RCO 3.
Additionally, one interviewee indicated that the S-Mode is designed on the complex
onboard systems to ensure that a mariner does not get overloaded:
e-Navigation (and digitalization efforts in general, maritime Internet of Thing
(IoT), etc.) will mean having potential access to a lot of information. This can
be both a benefit and a hazard. If this information lead to information overload,
then e-Navigation could actually lead to accidents.
S-mode can be engaged when the mariner becomes overwhelmed by the information,
allowing the navigator to remove unnecessary clutter information, give access to
specialist information, or set the system to their preferred configuration.
E-Navigation is dependent on complex communication and routing infrastructures that
may or may not include big data or clouds. However, communication services, clouds,
and big data resources are all liable to fail at one time or another. E-Navigation has to be
considered in a similar context. How can a mariner source the information to continue
with his operational needs? To ensure a Safe Mode:
1. The equipment or services dependent on e-Navigation must provide an alert to the
mariner immediately if the system is compromised, irrespective of where that
failure may be.
54
2. A fall back provision of e-Navigation service must be available to all vessels and
shore actors by the time an update of information of either is required.
3. All vessels (SOLAS and non-SOLAS) must immediately be informed when the
failure is detected and if there is an alternative source of information available.
4. Measures to offset the imbalance of the e-Navigation and non e-Navigation
compliant vessels must ensure enhanced safety of life to a much wider community.
5.7 Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity was not a focus of the current study, but the theme emerged in many of
the interview results, which indicates a need for further research in this area.
To begin with, IMO awareness of recent cyber attacks was initiated by the report of
Canada and United States MSC 94/4/1 in 2014. According to Hahn et al. (2016),
international shipping companies such as BIMCO, ICS, INTERCARGO, and
INTERTAKO are developing guiding principles which would enable management of
data security and reduce the chances of cyber-attacks. On June 2017, BIMCO, CLIA,
ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO, OCIMF and IUMI published the second edition
of The Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships (BIMCO, 2017). Furthermore, this
guideline also been aligned with the adopted recommendations given in the
Implementation of Cyber Risk Management that established by the IMO Maritime
Safety Committee’s meeting in June 2017, in Resolution MSC.428(98) (Montgomery,
2017). Before that, in April 2017, IMO established a working group including
FAL/MSC (IMO FAL 41/WP.1) to develop guidelines on cybersecurity (IMO, 2017).
Indeed, system hacking has proliferated in the current era of technological development.
Any move to incorporate workable computerized system is followed by an
understanding of possible threats in the internet. The shipping organizations have
corporately been in discussion evaluating topics such as integrity of information,
55
awareness of cyber threats, management and confidentiality of data. These are pillars to
identification of any impeding attack.
Meanwhile, a federally funded research and development center called The National
Cybersecurity FFRDC (NCF), operated by an American not-for-profit organization
which also supports the U.S. government agency, developed The Common
Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE), which is a system that provides the database of
information security vulnerabilities and exposures. Figures 7 and 8 show the statistics of
total vulnerabilities by year and type from 1999 to 2017.
Figure 7. Total vulnerabilities by year (source: www.cvedetails.com)
56
Figure 8. Total vulnerabilities by each type within 18 years (1999 to 2017) (source:
www.cvedetails.com)
According to the CVE database, it is observed that the total of system vulnerability is
increasing almost every year. Surprisingly, the highest increase came from last year.
From 2016 to September 2017, the system vulnerabilities jumped from 6447 to 9927. In
sum, the highest vulnerability came from the execute code and exploits type within 18
years, and the total number of vulnerabilities continues to increase, as shown in Figure 9
below.
57
Figure 9. Vulnerabilities by type and year (source: www.cvedetails.com)
During 2017, wannacry was reported to have attacked more than 230,000 computer
systems in over 150 countries (source needed here). Petya, which happened on 27 June
2017, infected several companies including the biggest shipping company, Maersk,
causing delays in their logistic chain all around the world.
In addition, new exploits are created every day. There are different kinds of them; some
can give a root privilege, while others just expose private information. It seems
impossible to make a system that will not be vulnerable of new ways of attacking. This
issue is kind of problematic for all of us. a short discussion during the WMU symposium
week in June 2017 with an IT expert from a company that provide maritime IT service
revealed that the shipping industry is not used to that kind of speed. He also noted that it
58
is frequently too enthusiastic to adopt advanced technology. It sounds like they “skip
ahead [in] the development process, and this is extremely worrying and so far the
industry has no answer for it at all”, he said.
It looks like the need for new technology and digitalization cannot be avoided within the
maritime industry. For instance, block chain and autonomous ships. may find a system
convenient, but is it secure enough to be used? On the other side, the regulator takes
time to establish or implement policies and regulations about cybersecurity. Long
processes and bureaucracy dominate the procedure. For example, the cybersecurity issue
within IMO started in 2014 until now. However, system security should not be limited
by protection from exploits alone, but it should also take into account human factors that
cannot be underestimated. Mitnick (2002) popularized the term of social engineering
(the human element of security) in his book called The Art of Deception. He mentioned
that social engineering bypasses all safeguards like intrusion detection systems,
firewalls, encryption, or other security technologies. As a conclusion, there will be no
standard regarding whether the system is secure enough because security of systems is a
process, not a state. The only possibility is to mitigate risk to an acceptable degree, but it
is impossible to remove all risk (Mitnick, 2002).
Furthermore, e-Navigation concept will provide a single window solution for a
communication link between actors ashore and the ship. However, if the concept uses
internet, there is a possibility that everything that goes online is not secure. Probable
attacks could dismantle every bit of information. This can result in the loss in terms of
funds and human resources employed in the system. Nowadays, there are other services
that are using internet, not the core of e-Navigation services itself. For instance, some
passenger ships upgraded their ship using VSAT to use unlimited internet, but not all
vessels have this privilege.
59
On the other hand, it is observed that VDES and LRIT systems and data exchanges
provide the capability to facilitate numerous applications for the core services of
e-Navigation. These applications provide things like safety and security of navigation,
protection of marine environment, weather, efficiency of shipping, and others
(ECC,2013). Moreover, one interviewee mentioned hacking and manipulation of
information as the worst scenario that could happen within e-Navigation. Therefore,
using secure networks such as LRIT or VDES would be best choice to mitigate the risk
of cyber-attacks, rather than a system that uses internet. This is an important
consideration for the development of e-Navigation.
60
6. CONCLUSION
This dissertation’s objectives were to examine the potential limitations and benefits of
the implementation of e-Navigation, and especially how to address diverse types of
vessels within this concept. To achieve the main objectives, the study comprehensively
looks at the modus operandi of the proposed e-Navigation concept, and discusses
requirements and implementation plans of the complete concept onboard and ashore. A
thorough analysis included reviewing the SIP, journals, and articles related to
e-Navigation are performed. Moreover, an interview study with some selected key
stakeholders was performed in this dissertation.
E-Navigation is still under development, but it is targeted for implementation by 2020.
In the state of art of e-Navigation nowadays, vessels and shore infrastructures are
following the path for its implementation. However, the study found that the primary
challenge is that neither every ship nor every country will have a similar arrangement for
the implementation, because it is not mandatory. It is also foreseen that in the future not
all vessels will be equipped according to the e-Navigation concept, as some vessels will
not be sophisticated enough to reach the state due to the increased cost or suitability of
achieving e-Navigation readiness. Consequently, the loss of the opportunity for all
vessels to get the latest information that was available before e-Navigation, or receiving
different quality of information from e-Navigation disparities, undoubtedly will put a
vessel at a risk of casualty. At this point, it is crucial to have the receipt log, or bulletin
board function, within the e-Navigation system to avoid a misunderstanding between
61
users. Therefore, the issue of vessel capability also leads to the two-tier maritime society
that might be caused by this condition.
When a coastal state decides to proceed thesis writing help U with the e-Navigation concept, it will take time
until full implementation can be reached. Therefore, it will be necessary for each type of
vessel to communicate each other’s information (maneuver, actions, ship’s position,
etc.) to mitigate the risk of casualty within the scenario of receiving different “quality”
of information. To address this issue, the traditional method of information and data
exchange will likely remain in use until the complete implementation of the
e-Navigation concept is available for all vessels. Moreover, it is important for the
authorities to understand the inherent challenges discussed, as they have the main
responsibility for the quality and control of information.
Nevertheless, e-Navigation will make an enormous positive impact on the maritime
world, if it is properly applied. The language barrier for VTS and inter-ship
communications system will be diminished and replaced by an accurate and high quality
integrated marine information system. This will amalgamate with the shore-based
capacity development to control and guide vessel traffic, that is expected to reduce
accidents related to human error significantly in the future.
Finally, this dissertation makes some recommendations for the future development of
e-Navigation. The main emphases of this section are in the S-Mode, communications,
and cyber security. Firstly, with an assumption that e-Navigation might fail, the concept
itself provides a S-Mode. In order to provide “S-Mode” e-Navigation, the concept will
probably have to continue using its existing infrastructure and personnel employed for
traditional methods of information sharing. Furthermore, it is intended to servicing the
needs of non e-Navigation compliant vessels to ensure the equity of quality information
in the maritime community
62
Secondly, after researching cyber security, the hypothesis of not using internet within
the e-Navigation concept was established. Meanwhile, VDES technology is on the
horizon, and could successfully addressing the imbalance between the e-Navigation
compliant and non-compliant vessels by providing the networking capability to share
information from sophisticated vessels to large peer groups of vessels that they
encounter during their voyage. While expanding AIS does not seem to be a good idea
within busy channels such as the Strait of Malacca, it seems that two-way
communication provided by VDES perfectly suits the e-Navigation. On this point, the
recognition of VDES can secure the system using point to point services via satellite,
which is expected to reduce any imbalance markedly, and thus will enable the sharing of
enhanced safety of life to a much wider community.
Although this dissertation’s data has limited representativeness, a further study could
expand this data collection to address some of its shortcomings, as the problems
explored cannot be answered quickly and further research is needed. In addition, a
qualitative survey or questionnaire might provide some comprehensive outcomes, and
bring more perspectives to answer the issues.
With the full implementation of e-Navigation on the horizon, successful use of this
concept requires key ideas as the acknowledgement of information delivery and
consideration of the importance of the role of non-SOLAS vessel. As a conclusion, the
convenience of e-Navigation proposed “system” should be equally to minimize the risk
of casualty. All shortcomings possibilities should be taken into consideration within the
development of e-Navigation for the sake of safety of navigation and environmental
protections.
63
REFERENCES
ACCSEAS. (2014). E-Navigation Architecture and Standards / Project Information :
Report of the Feasibility Study of R-Mode using MF DGPS Transmissions.
Retrieved from http://www.accseas.eu/project-information/e-navigationarchitecture-and-standards/
Baldauf, M., & Hong, S. (2016). Original article: Improving and Assessing the Impact of
e-Navigation applications. International Journal Of E-Navigation And Maritime
Economy, 41-12. doi:10.1016/j.enavi.2016.06.001
Baldauf, M. (2015). ACCSEAS Training Needs Analysis Report. Review of the Present
Situation and Approach to Training Needs Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.accseas.eu/content/download/8101/73249/ACCSEAS%2520Training
%2520Needs%2520Analysis%2520Report.pdf
BIMCO. (2017). Joint industry launches latest industry guidelines on cyber security.
Retrieved from https://www.bimco.org/news/press-releases/20170705_cyber-g
Boréus, K., & Bergström, G. (2017). Narrative analysis. In Analyzing text and discourse:
Eight approaches for the social sciences (pp. 122-145). London: Sage
Publications.
Chan, H., & Özgüner, Ü. (1995). Closed-loop control of systems over a communications
network with queues. International Journal of Control, 62(3), 493-510.
doi:10.1080/00207179508921553
ECC. (2013). VDES Agenda item 1.16. Retrieved from https://cept.org/documents/cpgpt-c/13547/cpg-ptc. France: Author.
EMSA. (2012). Vessel traffic monitoring in EU waters (SafeSeaNet). Retrieved from
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/ssn-main.html
Hahn, A., Bolles, A., Fränzle, M., Fröschle, S., & Hyoung Park, J. (2016). Original
article: Requirements for e-Navigation Architectures. International Journal Of ENavigation And Maritime Economy, 51-20. doi:10.1016/j.enavi.2016.12.001
64
Hong, Sun-Bae. (2015). A Study on The Effect of e-Navigation on Reducing Vessel
Accident. The World Maritime University (WMU). Malmo, Sweden.
IALA. (2015). ACCSEAS E-Navigation Architecture Report, ENAV17-10.4.2, 3-4.
Retrieved from http://www.iala-aism.org/content/uploads/2016/08/
accseas_e_navigation_architecture_report_v1.pdf
IMO. (2008). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its eight-five session (MSC
85/26/Add.1). Annex 20. Strategy for the development and implementation of an eNavigation . London: Author.
IMO. (2014). Report of the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communication, Search and
Rescue on its first session (NCSR 1/28). Annex 7. Draft e-Navigation strategy
implementation plan. London: Author.
IMO. (2017). Draft report of the Facilitation Committee on its forty-first session (FAL
41/WP.1). London: Author.
Lee, S., Lemon, N., & Lützhöft, M. (2015). Harmonizing Guidance for Future Ship
Navigation Systems. Sea Technology, 56(11), 41-44.
Lützhöft, M. (2004). The technology is great when it works: Maritime technology and
human integration of the Ship’s Bridge. University of Linköping. Linköping,
Sweden.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publication.
Marshall, C. (2016, January). Face-to-Face Interviews – Advantages and Disadvantages.
Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-to-face-interviewsadvantages-disadvantages-charlie-marshall
Montgomery, M. (2017). New BIMCO cyber security guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.hfw.com/New-BIMCO-Guidelines-July-2017
Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in
Qualitative Research. Retrieved from http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/175/391&sa=U&ei=FdsJTdDCGY
OnrAer0YjVDg&ved=0CP4BEBYwXg&usg=AFQjCNEsC2J0wILvNuH7LEhQa
A2znBkKvw
65
Patraiko, D., Wake, P., Weintrit, A. (2010). e-Navigation and the Human
Element. Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 4(1), 11–16.
doi:10.1201/9780203869345.ch5.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and Assessment methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. CA: Sage.
The Nautical Institute. (2009). IMO adopts e-navigation. Retrieved from
http://www.nautinst.org/download.cfm?docid=3F7F2288-8F59-4F47-
A53249D6186BEBD3.
Weintrit, A. (2016). e-Nav, Is It Enough?. Transnav: International Journal On Marine
Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol 10, Iss 4, Pp 567-574 (2016),
(4), 567. doi:10.12716/1001.10.04.04
66
APPENDIX I
INTERVIEW FORM
BACKGROUND REVIEW
This is a list of questions designed to gather information relating to an individual’s
professional background and its relation to e-Navigation.
Interviewer: Where do you work at the moment and tell me what how many years you
have been working in maritime industry?
Interviewer: Describe your experience and list all your work related to e-Navigation?
Interviewer: List any other publications (journals, seminars, report, etc.) related with
the working of e-Navigation? (If any)
Interviewer: Which skills have you acquired in your present or previous positions that
related to ship’s navigation?
Interviewer: Are you a seafarer or maritime administrator? If yes, how many years you
have the experience?
Interviewer: Regarding the topic of e-Navigation, do you consider your technical
abilities basic, intermediate, or advanced?
TECHNICAL AND/OR WORKING CONDITIONS
This is a list of questions designed to gather information relating to an individual’s past
work experience, working conditions, and opinion which are related to e-Navigation.
SHORE’S SIDE
Interviewer: How will the operator know whether all vessels have received the
information? Is this important for him to know?
Interviewer: Will your country upgrade its infrastructure to enable e-Navigation or will
you continue to use traditional methods? Or both?
67
Interviewer: Not all the vessel will be sophisticated enough to keep up with e-Nav
requirement. Regarding the information given to the vessel, do you think e-Navigation
concept will create a problem on a shore side? Like what?
Interviewer: Do you often found / identified potential malfunctions of navigational
equipment? How did you discover the potential malfunction? What did you do to
correct the problem?
Interviewer: Will traditional methods of information promulgation still be available and
at what stage should the operator onshore resort to them?
Interviewer: Will the services offered to vessels have a quality and accuracy standard to
ensure that the information provided is accurate, current and applicable?
Interviewer: Having e-Navigation shore based system in your country, certainly
requires a lot of technical knowledge for the operator. What do you think about this?
SHIP’S SIDE
Interviewer: Do you foresee that not all vessels will have e-Navigation equipment? Do
you see this as a problem? (If Yes / No, describe your explanation)
Interviewer: Is there a risk that some vessels will have a different quality of
information? Explain the risk.
Interviewer: What factors can create a problem when each vessel gets a different
information?
Interviewer: Will vessel’s based e-Navigation system, requires the watch keeper to
have a lot of technical knowledge. What do you think about this?
Interviewer: How will the watch keeper or Master know what information is correct if
there is conflicting information from different sources?
Interviewer: How the e-Navigation effect the performance of the vessel considering
that the information is machine to machine?
68
Interviewer: How would a mariner know when to resort to traditional means of
information reception and will the services and equipment still be available to enable
them to do so?
NON-SOLAS VESSEL’S SIDE
Interviewer: How would you propose to ensure all vessels receive the same quality
information and services, even though less sophisticated will share the same waters as eNavigation compliant vessels?
Interviewer: Will the presence of vessel’s equipped with E-Navigation effect the way
non-SOLAS vessels that are not e-Navigation equipped will react in navigation and
operational scenarios?
Interviewer: What factors can contribute to collision/grounding in the sea when nonSOLAS vessels facing the vessel with e-Navigation?
Interviewer: In your idea, what methods/tools will you use to keep the non-SOLAS
vessel informed with what is going on in your area through E-Navigation system?
Interviewer: Will there be a need for non e-Navigation equipped vessels to
communicate e-Navigation information with e-Navigation equipped ones. If so how do
you ensure that they can communicate / update each other’s information?
GENERAL
Interviewer: What do you consider the most important contribution of E-Navigation for
the safety of navigation?
Interviewer: What is your opinion regarding the possibility of the reliability of
Electronic Navigation Chart (ENC) and streaming service (maritime cloud)?
Interviewer: Do you think it’s possible for the e-Navigation system to create services
that can communicate both to SOLAS and non-SOLAS vessels at the same time? If yes,
then how?
Interviewer: Give me an example of a worst case scenario that you think that ENavigation system could cause? And tell me how to mitigate or eradicate the possibility
of this happening?
—————————————————end—————————————————
69
APPENDIX II
INTERVIEW RESPONSES
The data collection of the interview responses is available on demands.

Published by

Medical

View all posts