ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System): Part1:

How ECDIS works.

March 9th, 2010 by JCB

When I decided to produce an article on ECDIS I thought that it would simply involve reading a few
articles, condensing the content and adding a few photographs. How wrong I was! Having started to delve
into the mysteries of ECDIS I realised that this charting system, the carriage of which shortly will become
mandatory, is a highly complex tool which, if it is to fully deliver the enhanced safety advertised, will
require watchkeepers to forget many of the traditional chartwork skills and learn to use the electronic chart
from scratch. Despite having waded through many papers and articles, even now I am not too sure that I
fully understand all the elements that are combined to produce an authorised ECDIS.

At the end of 2008, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee approved the mandatory carriage of ECDIS for
SOLAS vessels. The requirements are for ECDIS to be phased in for different classes of vessels between
2012 and 2018. One year on from the decision we are already seeing many vessels being fitted with
electronic charts so pilots need to be aware of what is now becoming the primary on board navigation
system. At first glance the electronic chart seems wonderful, your own ship is displayed on a computer
screen sitting nicely in its exact position on the chart. But, is it real or is it an illusion?

Navigation by means of a fully approved ECDIS is totally different from traditional navigation using paper
charts and requires detailed knowledge of the functions in order to ensure safe navigation yet, whereas
traditional chartwork formed a major element of a deck officer’s navigation exams, electronic charts are
being placed on board ships and officers are frequently expected to teach themselves how to use them in
their own time by use of a thick and confusing manual. The situation is further complicated by the fact that
different manufacturers provide different operating systems and features and so a watchkeeper could be fully
competent in using one system but may then be transferred to another vessel with a totally different charting
system. Currently, there appears to be considerable confusion over whether or not the electronic chart being
displayed is an “official” ECDIS running an approved ENC ( Electronic Navigational Chart), an unapproved
ECS (Electronic Charting System) or a RCDS (Raster Chart Display System). Unapproved systems must not
be used for navigation but since they are usually located on the bridge front and even fitted into integrated
bridge consoles they are commonly used as the primary navigation resource! I have frequently seen
unauthorised electronic charts with a warning notice “Not to be used for navigation” fitted into the bridge
console with the passage route displayed. There will be a set of paper charts on the chart table fully
corrected up to date so the ship isn’t breaking any rules but it is obvious that many watchkeepers will just
cast a glance at the electronic chart and be reassured that the ship is on-track. Even worse, some incidents
have revealed that watchkeepers have trusted the position provided by such unauthorised systems despite
conflicting visual and radar information. Such misguided trust is a human failing not limited to ship’s
watchkeepers since vehicle drivers using electronic navigation systems will happily take articulated lorries
down farm tracks or the wrong way down one-way streets!

Unfortunately, without comprehensive training in the ECDIS concept, such misguided trust on board ship is
usually disastrous and tragically will almost inevitably result in fatalities.

Raster and Vector Electronic Charts

As the official ECDIS is phased in, one of the major problems is that for the last 15 years manufacturers
have been producing electronic chart systems to a variety of differing standards and there are currently two
totally different formats: Raster & Vector.
 A raster chart is basically a scan of a paper chart

A Raster Navigation Chart (RNC) is basically a digitally scanned paper chart and the electronic chart
database will be identical to a paper chart folio and the user license provides the relevant folios and
corrections for a particular area with new editions being issued in an identical manner to those for paper
charts. Raster charts are never approved for navigation. However, just to add a bit more confusion into
the issue, the IMO permits raster charts to be used on an official ECDIS which can operate an approved
Raster Chart Display System (RCDS). The ECDIS can therefore be used to display a raster chart in areas
where ENC data is not available or the full ENC license hasn’t been purchased. However, when in RCDS
mode a warning should appear on the ECDIS screen and paper charts for the area must be carried and
corrected up to date. This potentially dangerous “dual fuel” (as it is known) option will probably rapidly
disappear rapidly as hydrographic offices complete the world database of approved ENC data since if a ship
gets orders to proceed to an area not covered by its existing ENC license then, rather than keep paper chart
folios and also pay for raster chart folios for the ECDIS, the ship will just have to email the chart supplier for
the key to the additional areas and the access codes will be sent and the owners charged accordingly. Last
year an interesting spat arose between the UKHO and an innovative chart supplier over the issue of access
codes that I will cover later.

There are two main advantages with the raster chart. Firstly, they are cheap and so they have been a popular
choice with ship owners. Indeed some Masters, whose owners are reluctant to invest in anything
unnecessary, carry their own raster charts on a laptop with a cheap, low grade, GPS aerial plugged in. Such
charts are usually from a somewhat dubious source. I have seen such laptops running charts that are at least
ten years out of date. The Captain of course always states, “No no Mr. Pilot, not used for navigation. Paper
charts all correct in chart room”!

The other advantage of a raster charts is that since it is a scanned version of a traditional paper chart the
chart display is totally familiar to the navigator. However, this scanned format also represents the greatest
drawback of the raster chart in that by being displayed on a small screen data which may be clear on a large
paper chart may be lost and whilst switching to the larger scale chart for the area may clarify detail, the
important overview of the passage ahead is lost whilst the alternative of “zooming in” on the smaller scale
chart generally produces distortion. Another problem frequently arises in areas where two charts overlap
where the software may become confused and the navigator then has to locate and manually input the
correct chart from the database.

A typical small vessel bridge showing an unapproved ECS at the conning position

Vector charts are far more complex being totally seamless and built from several different “layers” which
cause additional features such as depth data to appear as the operator zooms in and therefore provides a less
congested display on the smaller scales. However, in their wisdom the authorities have set the minimum
screen display size at a tiny 27cm x 27cm which is about 1/4 the size of a paper chart so zooming in
considerably reduces the view ahead for the passage and there is therefore a recommended optimum layer
range set for navigation. The main danger of this layering function is that chart corrections and notices to
mariners information is only required to be displayed on this optimum layer for navigation as decided by the
ECDIS specifications. This results in another major disadvantage in that passage planning becomes more
complex since a navigator will use a small scale display to plan a port to port passage but must then check
the whole route at the largest scale in order to ensure that no hazards or obstructions are overlooked. I have
now piloted many ships operating without paper charts and this factor is a common complaint amongst the
watchkeepers using them. Indeed many of these vessels still use paper planning charts for this reason,
which reveals another problem in that some of the newly constructed vessels designed to operate without
paper charts aren’t fitted with a chart table!!

However, once a safe passage route has been identified the advantages of the vector chart become evident
because the chart display can then be configured specifically to the vessel’s parameters. Depth contours and
“no-go” areas can be tailored to the ship’s particulars and hazards highlighted with alarms that can be
activated if the vessel strays from the intended track or when approaching a hazard. The provision of AIS
overlay permits anti collision parameters to be set and radar and other data can be input and overlaid on the
screen. Such features represent the great advantage of the vector chart and offer considerable potential to
enhance safety but, in untrained hands, is can also be its greatest weakness. Because of its three dimensional
functionality using layers of “objects” the techniques for navigating on a vector chart are totally different to
the traditional paper chart methodology and so the comprehensive training in their use is paramount for the
transition from a two dimensional paper chart.

This vector chart is an “AECDIS 2000″ but it isn’t an “approved” ECDIS and therefore must not be used for
navigation so why is there a passage track on it?

Are all vector charts ENC’s?

Simple answer: NO! Whilst official ENC data is only supplied in vector format the vast majority of existing
vector charts have been created by manufacturers using their own methodology for transferring data from
existing paper charts into vector format. If this data hasn’t been provided by an approved hydrographic
office using the authorised S-57 format then such vector charts are only classified as ECS and therefore
cannot be used in place of paper charts.

Is an ECDIS an ENC?

A common misconception is that an ECDIS is an actual chart. In fact it is basically a display system meeting
the strict specifications required to display the ENC data supplied by the approved HO’s. The following is
the official definition for ECDIS:

IMO Resolution MSC 232 (82) defines an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) as: “a
navigation information system which with adequate back-up arrangements can be accepted as complying
with the up-to-date chart required by regulations V/19 and V/27 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, as
amended, by displaying selected information from a System Electronic Navigational Chart (SENC) with
positional information from navigation sensors to assist the mariner in route planning and route monitoring,
and if required display additional navigation-related information”.

An ECDIS also has to meet specific performance standards which are laid down in IMO Resolution A/817.
This resolution describes the minimum performance standards for ECDIS, with reference to hardware,
software, ENC and updates, user interface, integration with positioning sensors such as radar and other
devices, etc.
The technical standards are set by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and it is the
responsibility of the Classification Societies to assess whether a particular ECDIS installation is compliant.
Systems that comply with all requirements get a “Type Approval” certificate from the Classification Society
and only such Type Approved installations can legitimately be called ECDIS.

An important point to note here is that an ECDIS can only be used in place of paper charts if the information
being displayed is sourced from an ENC converted by a SENC. Confusing? Yes, because although
manufacturers may fit type approved ECDIS, the ship owner, having fitted an ECDIS unit in anticipation of
future carriage requirements, may not purchase licenses for ENC’s until legally required to do so and the
chart may therefore only be a basic Electronic Chart System (ECS). So, until all vessels are finally fitted
with “approved” systems over the next 8 years mariners in general and pilots in particular will be faced with
a mix of approved and non approved electronic charts.

There is also a requirement for a back up system in case of ECDIS failure. The specifictions state

The purpose of an ECDIS back-up system is to ensure that safe navigation is not compromised in the event
of ECDIS failure. This should include a timely transfer to the back-up system during critical navigation
situations. The back- up system shall allow the vessel to be navigated safely until the termination of the
voyage.

What’s the difference between ENC & SENC?

MSC 232 provides the following definitions:

ENC: means the database, standardised as to content, structure and format, for charting and updates issued
for use with ECDIS by or on the authority of a Government, authorised Hydrographic Office or other
relevant government institution, and which conforms to an IHO standard known as S-57/3. The ENC
contains all the chart information necessary for safe navigation. On the ship, S-57/3 data is loaded into the
ECDIS in a dedicated storage area, called the ENC database.

SENC:

Since the S-57/3 format is not suitable for data processing, the ECDIS has to

convert the ENC into a different format referred to as SENC. The resulting data is then loaded into a
separate SENC database from where it is accessed by the chart display and navigational

functions of ECDIS and this database may also contain information added by the mariner or from other
sources.

The ECDIS manufacturer may choose whatever format and database structure for the SENC, provided that
the ENC data is not downgraded in accuracy and/or contents during the conversion process.

The ECDIS structure is best explained in the following diagram which I obtained from an excellent website
on ECDIS at the following link:

www.fuerstenberg-dhg.de/index.php?&L=1
There are some concerns that the SENC is a potential weak link in the integrity of the ECDIS installation
since the final chart display presented to the watchkeeper is in the hands of the ECDIS manufacturers rather
than the Hydrographic Offices. There is also the fact that when corrections or new charting editions are sent
to the ship the conversion process can take a long time during which time the ECDIS cannot be used. To
overcome this the manufacturers are increasingly offering a service to convert the ENC data to SENC
ashore. In a recent paper, Dr. Fosco Bianchetti (President & CEO of C-Map) detailed the problems
associated with the ENC’s and the conversion process within and ECDIS and why he believes that the
conversion to SENC should be undertaken ashore rather than on board the ship. The following is an edited
extract from his paper which can be found at the following link: www.thsoa.org/hy99/A_5.pdf

“The problem is that the SENC is generated by the ECDIS, and never tested before being used by the
ECDIS itself. It may be argued that the SENC Compiler, as part of a type-approved ECDIS, has undergone
a severe testing procedure and is therefore assumed to be robust, reliable and exact. Nevertheless there is
always a certain degree of uncertainty in format conversion, that could result in partial data loading,
unexpected behaviour of the ECDIS, or a system crash. Also, the conversion of a large amount of data may
be a lengthy affair, and could absorb a large part of the ECDIS resources, maybe right in the moment in
which the system is performing a critical computation or analysis. The lack of official ENC’s makes things
worse. Even if a number of Hydrographic Offices have started ambitious programs of ENC production, very
few official electronic charts in S-57/3 format currently available. The result is that ECDIS users have to
supplement ENC data with non-ENC electronic charts. This is the concept of the so-called “dual-fuel
ECDIS. Since the ECDIS operates in non-equivalent mode when using non-ENC charts, S-52 and the IMO
Performance Standards require that these are not mixed with the ENC and therefore, they must be loaded in
the ECDIS into a separate storage area (‘Non-ENC information’ in the diagram) and must remain clearly
distinguishable from official charts even after compilation in the SENC. It must be stressed that quality of
non-ENC charts may vary to a large extent, and their format may be very different from S-57/3 and this adds
further complications (and potential problems) to the task of the SENC Compiler that has to blend various
electronic charts with different features into a single database”.
In order to address these issues, not surprisingly, C-MAP have come up with a solution in the latest version
of their product known as CM 93/3 which produces the SENC format ashore in a format which I understand
has type approval from DNV. Dr Bianchetti explains.

The advantages of this approach are obvious. All format conversions, as well as the difficult task of
harmonising and merging data from different sources, are performed at C-MAP facilities, under strictly
controlled conditions, and not by the ECDIS installed on board. All data delivered to ships is double
checked in advance, in the format in which it will be actually used by the ECDIS, to ensure that it is fully
functional and does not contain ‘unwanted surprises’. Any error affecting the source electronic charts is
detected (and, if possible, corrected) by C-MAP, instead of being just passed off to the user. As regards the
theoretical issue of whether the original ENC in S-57/3 format should be physically present in the ECDIS or
not, there are a number of considerations that could mitigate such requirement, or lead to a different
interpretation of it:

The only purpose for the ENC to exist on board is generating the SENC. In fact, whatever operation
performed by the ECDIS on electronic chart data pertains to the SENC, not the ENC. Therefore,
existence of the ENC in the ECDIS is purposeless, if the conversion to SENC has been already
performed under controlled conditions, by a SENC compiler that is part of a type-approved ECDIS.
S-52 and the IMO PS require that data is not downgraded in accuracy and/or contents during the
conversion from ENC to SENC, meaning that ENC and SENC are logically equivalent to each other.
At this point, any ENC stored in the ECDIS would represent a mere duplication of the corresponding
SENC.
Based on the above consideration, the theoretical requirement of having the ENC physically present
in the ECDIS could be fulfilled by the capability of the SENC compiler to perform a back conversion
(i.e. from SENC to ENC).

An approved ECDIS chart. Note the crowded screen!

Operation

When an ECDIS is switched on the watchkeeper is presented with a “standard display” which will consist of
the largest scale available in the SENC for the displayed area. The navigator can then build on that display
and taylor it to his own watch keeping needs. The specifications require that the ECDIS can be returned to
the standard display by means of a “single operator action”.
However, this standard display will not show all the features that you would expect to see on the paper chart.
For example features such as submarine cables and spot depths aren’t there and although navigation marks
are shown their characteristics aren’t so the navigator needs to know how to access and display this
important additional data from the menu system.

For passage planning the navigator first needs to ensure that the ECDIS contains all the necessary charts for
the passage and it is here that an interesting argument has developed between a chart supplier and the
UKHO. In 2009 an authorised Dutch ENC supply company introduced a sort of “pay as you go” charging
plan called ENCTrack that basically permitted free access to all ENC’s but only required the ship owner to
pay licence fee for those he actually used on passage.

The UKHO, along with some other approved HO’s halted the launch of this service on the basis that the
licensing of any chart should start on the commencement of the planning process; that is, “when it is ‘first
used’ in the vital and mandated process of assessing the data available to enable a voyage plan to be
prepared”.

In contrast, ‘ENCTrack’ considers the chart’s ‘first use’ to be when the vessel is passing through the chart
region, not when the mariner starts his planning process with those same charts. The UKHO argument is
that when preparing a passage plan a navigating officer is making informed decisions affecting ship safety
from consulting all the charts and the embedded additional information relevant to his plan so licences
should be purchased for all the charts not just for a narrow track over which the vessel actually passes.
However, not all HO’s agree with the UKHO position on this and consequently at the time of writing
Datema have launched a limited ENCTrack service with those HO’s. Interestingly, despite the objections,
Datema have recently won an award as a “Value Added” reseller of ENC’s. This case highlights just one of
the many issues that need to be resolved within the next two years.

Once the navigator has the relevant charts he can now set his waypoints and save the passage in the database
and should back this up in case of failure of the primary system. He can then set the safe depth parameters
and the ECDIS can then be set to highlight the appropriate contours for the passage. Undertaking the
passage and the quirks of ECDIS for navigation will be covered in part 2 in the April issue.

Don’t forget to pay! photo: N Allen

 Of course, having the shiny new ECDIS with the relevant chart folios is only the initial element of chart
work since the ENCs stored in a SENC require regularly updating. and it is here that some further
unresolved complications arise. Updating data can either be made by sending a CD ROM by post, or by data
transfer using satellite or mobile phone. Because of the large size of files associated with the updates the
latter mode, although preferable is currently expensive, also upon receipt, data transferred by satellite or
mobile phone must be burnt on to a CD ROM before the ENC can be updated. The CD ROM is necessary
for keeping a hard copy of the update available. The cheaper option of updating by post, apart from the
obvious problem of time delays, also could result in some updates being missed. This is serious because
updates are sequential and if one is missing the update procedure can not be completed until the missing
previous updates have been applied.

Even when the CD is received on board there is evidence that the updating process is not always simple and
can take considerable time. It also appears that on many systems there is no confirmation that the update has
been successful without the navigator having to subsequently check in the folio database for each chart
affected which represents a total waste of a busy watchkeeper’s time and totally annuls one of the
fundamental advantages claimed for ECDIS.

For urgent navigation warnings ECDIS specifications require that they can be manually updated but again I
understand that on many systems this can be a time consuming and fiddly process with no standard input
procedure. These problems are well known and the following somewhat alarming information is taken from
the latest (January 2010) ECDIS guidance CD issued by the UKHO:

Updates for UKHO ENCs are issued weekly in line with UKHO policy for all its navigational charts, paper
and electronic. Due to unforeseen technical difficulties, ENC updates may occasionally be issued late and
consequently may not be synchronised with the corresponding Notices to Mariners and updates for paper
and ARCS charts. Updates are issued for all Permanent Chart-Correcting and Preliminary Notices to
Mariners. However, it may not always be possible to issue updates for Temporary Notices to Mariners,
especially those that cover large geographical areas and are not chart specific. Mariners should consult the
paper weekly Notices to Mariners booklet or the UKHO website, http://www.nms.ukho.gov.uk/, for details of
these Notices to Mariners.

So it appears we have a situation where the ECDIS updates may not contain the latest warnings and may
even be missing some altogether! I wonder just how many officers have either the time or inclination to
check the printed weekly NtM’s to check that their ECDIS information is complete? My estimation would
be zero!

Another worrying aspect of the updating process is that once applied these are not shown in the traditional
manner associated with paper charts but with a new symbology of a polygon with an exclamation mark in it
placed in the general area of the notice. The notice will only appear on the “recommended” range scale for a
particular ENC so won’t appear if the display is zoomed in or out! The following is again from the UKHO:

The display shows red polygons around the locations of NMs, along with the NM number. T&P NMs are
shown with the NM number used in the Admiralty NM Bulletin, including the (T) or (P) designator. EP NMs
are shown with (EP) in the number and using numbers that do not conflict with existing paper NMs. All
NMs are linked to specific ENCs and will only display when the linked ENC is displayed. This means that as
the user zooms in or out to scales at which the NM is no longer relevant, it will be removed from the screen.

Attached to each polygon is the full text of the NM, which can be viewed using the ECDIS pick report. In
addition, complex NMs have an attached diagram or picture that helps explain the situation and is available
directly from the ECDIS.

So we currently have a situation where the ECDIS NtM’s aren’t synchronised with the printed NtM’s and
the information is displayed in an unfamiliar format that has to be interrogated to reveal its content.
Feedback from users also reveals concerns that these polygons add further clutter to an already crowded
display especially if they contain information not relevant to their particular vessel.
System Stability

An ECDIS is a computer and as such its stability is dependent upon the processing power available. Like all
computers, over a period of time the ECDIS memory will fill up and require clearing out. As the memory fill
then processing of information will slow and sometimes freeze and the ECDIS will require a re-boot.
Obviously this is far from ideal if the vessel is in a busy shipping lane when such computer “issues” occur.

Additional Navigational Information

As part of an integrated system an ECDIS can be interfaced to overlay Radar and AIS data on the charted.
Other items such as passage planning tools can be added to the ECDIS database and accessed as required.
However, information software is not automatically supplied with the ENC so has to be purchased
separately at additional cost. Examples of planning overlays are tide and weather information, sailing
directions, port arrival information etc. The disadvantage of such services is that they are often produced by
different software providers so the incompatibility problems associated with any computer software on
different platforms can arise and of course additional software uses up memory and processing power. To
combat this the ECDIS suppliers are increasingly offering such additional software packages specifically
tailored to their equipment.

The striped lines on this ECDIS diplay alert the user that he is not using the “recommended” scale!

Training

As can be gleaned from all the aforementioned factors, the safe and efficient operation of ECDIS requires
officers to not only be aware of the basic principles of ECDIS operation but they must also be fully
conversant with their particular installation.

So, with an estimated 500,000 officers requiring such training before 2018, how is the Industry addressing
this training issue? Well as is traditional for the Maritime world the situation is confusing because there is
currently no mandatory IMO requirement for watchkeepers to attend ECDIS courses. However, under
STCW95 a navigation officer must possess “a thorough knowledge of and ability to use navigational charts
and publications…” He must show “..evidence of skills and ability to prepare for and conduct a passage,
including interpretation and applying information from charts”.

In an annexe to the STCW95 requirements ECDIS is classified as a “chart” so under the ISM code ship
owners have an obligation to ensure that their officers are trained to use ECDIS. Consequently, there is a
requirement that all the watchkeepers serving on board any ship which has replaced its paper charts with an
approved ECDIS system must have been formally trained in its use. Despite not formally requiring training,
the IMO have proposed a syllabus for ECDIS courses and the major navigational institutions are now
offering generic ECDIS courses but which currently vary in length between two and five days. Considering
how traditional chartwork formed such a major element of a navigator’s training there is increasing concern
that the existing courses are woefully inadequate for a watchkeeper to practically comply with the STCW95
requirements. These concerns are enhanced by the generic nature of these courses which cover the basic
principles ECDIS but cannot possibly provide an officer with the necessary competencies required to
operate a particular manufacturer’s ECDIS. Since the regulations leave the manufacturers free to decide how
the SENC information is displayed and the multitude of functions accessed, we are entering the age of
ECDIS with a similar incompatible and confusing variety of ECDIS operating systems as currently exists
with the myriad of radar operating systems on today’s bridges!

The IMO are currently proposing that ECDIS training will be a specific requirement in the revised STCW
code, scheduled for adoption this year but again this will be generic rather than type specific and so will
probably just serve to formalise the existing ad-hoc training courses.

The best ship owners are addressing these issues by sending their officers on type specific courses under
their ISM compliance requirements but even such well trained officers may not be fully competent to use
another manufacturer’s equipment if he transfers to another ship or company.

Other ship owners are sending officers for the basic training but passing the buck back to the ship by issuing
ISM instructions that watchkeepers must familiarise themselves with the ECDIS using the manufacturers
handbook. Since some of these can be over 500 pages in length and not easily understood, even by officers
who have the advantage of English as a first language such training methodology is unlikely to provide the
requisite competency. At the bottom end of the scale the vast majority of ship owners are awaiting the
mandatory carriage dates for their fleets and somewhat unsurprisingly there is a growing concern that the
authorised training establishments will not be able to cope with the last minute rush! I am already aware of
one company which having purchased a coastal tanker from an owner who had fitted an ECDIS system had
placed paper charts on board rather than incur the cost of sending the new officers on a training course.
Another reason might have been that his crew agency were unable to supply ECDIS trained officers who, if
available at all, are no doubt currently at a premium!

Given the track record of some crew supply agencies I think that we can expect to see a lot of forged ECDIS
certificates appearing in the near future.

What about pilots?

Given all the complexities of ECDIS and the myriad of different operating systems the advice to pilots is
that an ECDIS should never be used as the primary navigation tool for pilotage.

Finally my thanks go to Harry Gale of the Nautical Institute for permission to freely use information from
the NI publication “From paper charts to ECDIS” which is the best publication on ECDIS available at this
time. See my review in the April 2009 issue.

JCB

PS This article has been compiled from a wide variety of different sources and so my interpretation may not
be totally correct. Please let me know if you find any errors in order that I can correct them accordingly.
ECDIS Part 2: Navigating Using ECDIS
June 29th, 2010 by JCB

He had bought a large map representing the sea

Without the least vestige of land
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
Lewis Carroll

TRAINING:

In part 1, I expressed concerns over the training and in particular the need for any ECDIS user to be fully
competent in the particular type of ECDIS placed on board his ship. Whilst such type specific expertise
through training is being achieved the top end of the shipping industry, such as cruise liners and large
tankers, the evidence is emerging of an alarming lack of comprehension by many officers of, not just their
own system but of ECDIS and its functions in general. These are not just personal concerns but reflect those
of many Industry observers.

Why is training such an issue?

Currently if you place any navigating officer on a bridge with a set of paper charts, even if they have been
supplied by a country whose charting he has never seen before, he will recognise the key features and be
able to plan a safe passage for any vessel to which he has been allocated.

This hasn’t happened by accident but is a direct result of the evolution of the paper chart over centuries
which has been accompanied by similarly evolving chartwork skills passed on to successive generations of
navigators. In contrast to such evolution, within the next eight years, the safety of the worlds’ shipping and
coastlines will be dependent upon navigators fully comprehending not just the principles behind vector
charting but the particular ECDIS operating system on their ship. As mentioned in part 1, despite an IMO
model course being approved by the STCW committee in 1999, this course is not yet mandatory but ship
owners / operators are required to train their officers to use ECDIS under their ISM policies. The top ship
owners are sending their officers on training courses, based on the IMO model, run by their ECDIS suppliers
and since these normally run for five days these officers will have a comprehensive understanding, not just
of the principles of ECDIS, but also of their specific equipment. This is the ideal but only covers a minority
group and because so many ship owners / operators now use crewing agencies the vast majority aren’t
receiving such comprehensive training. The result is that, in order to tick the appropriate ISM box,these
officers are being sent on very basic three day courses which can only ever be generic and with, no exam to
pass, make no assessment as to an officer’s comprehension of the ECDIS concept or competence in its use.
 An ECDIS
“standard” display of the same area. Note the missing anchorage and restricted zone text & detail! The
safety contour here has been set at 10m.

Poor training is a fundamental problem because navigating by use of ECDIS requires a completely new
approach to chartwork and the adoption of totally new skills. When navigation by use of electronic charts
was first muted there was considerable discussion as to how such a system should operate and although
mariners preferred the familiarity of a scan of a paper chart into an electronic version of the same it was
considered that, if accompanied by a comprehensive re-training programme, a three dimensional
“intelligent” charting system could not just enhance safety but also provide a platform for integrating other
information technologies into one central navigational console for the navigator. Thus the vector chart was
born. So, here we are in 2010 with the technology in place but without the requisite training. The widespread
concerns over this situation are valid because in order to navigate effectively using ECDIS a navigator must
forget the two dimensional paper chart and navigate using the three dimensions in which the ship actually
operates. Unfortunately, in order to avoid overloading the tiny screen, the vector chart hides much essential
navigational information away on different “layers” and the navigator is therefore faced with three major
problems. Firstly, he needs to know how to tailor his ECDIS to his ship and the intended passage. Secondly
he needs to know what information is available within the ECDIS relevant to the intended passage and
thirdly, where to find that information, recognise its relevance and effectively apply it. Quite a tall order for
an officer who has joined a ship with an ECDIS that he’s never seen before after a 30 hour trip in a mini bus
from Poland who’s only had a 45 minute hand over because the officer he’s relieving is going home in the
same minibus. Yes, it has happened!!

Setting up the ECDIS

During the installation of an ECDIS, the supplier should have entered fixed vessel data such as the length
and beam and also aligned the ship’s position on the ECDIS with the aerial position on the ship. The
manoeuvring characteristics of the ship should also have been entered during installation and once set, this
information cannot normally be altered by the operator. As the range is zoomed in, the ship position
identifier on the chart will change from a spot surrounded by two concentric rings to a scale plan of the
vessel so it is essential that this vessel data is correctly entered.
Generally, unless a vessel is spending a long period in port, it is recommended that the EDCIS is left
switched on whilst in port because, like any computer a start up from cold can take a considerable time.

Preliminary set up:

Before commencing a passage the navigator must check the ECDIS for the proposed passage, firstly to
ensure that the vessel has licenses for all the ENC charts ( called cells) and secondly to ensure that these are
up to date with the latest corrections that are supplied, either by CD ROM or via an Internet connection. So,
assuming that all the passage licenses are in order and up to date, the first thing that the navigator needs to
do is to enter the ship’s draft and air draft and establish the safety contour based on draft and the required
Under keel Clearance (UKC). For example, with a vessel of 6m draft the depth contour could be chosen as
8m. However, since most ENC data is supplied with preset contours, typically at 5m intervals the display
will default to the next deepest contour which in this case would be 10m. All areas of less than 10m will
show as blue and areas deeper than 10 will be displayed as white (see above picture). So as long as the ship
remains in the white area, she is, in theory, safe! There are more complex facilities that can be set up if
required but that is outside the scope of this article. In addition to the safety contour, this same depth of 8m
can be set as the safety depth. In this case, if the navigator sets the ECDIS to display depths then all depths
of less than 8m will show in bold type and those deeper than 8 will be a pale grey. This means that a depth
of 9m, although within the 10m blue safety contour it will displayed in pale grey text whereas a depth of 7m
will be displayed in bold black. The whole safety of the passage is dependent on this information being
correct so, if a navigator fails to set this correctly, the scene is set for a disaster! It could be all to easy for a
new watchkeeper joining a vessel that arrived in a loading port with a draft of 4m with the safety contour
and depth set at 5m to forget to change the draft and depths to the loaded draft, especially if he was
unfamiliar with the ECDIS type in use. Such a failure was responsible for the grounding of the CFL
Performer in 2008 where the MAIB report states the following: ECDIS was the primary means of
navigation, but none of the vessel’s bridge watchkeeping officers had been trained in its use.
Consequently, many of the system’s features which could have prevented this accident were not utilised.
However, assuming that our officer has fully trained on his ECDIS the next task is to set up a safety domain.
IMO specifications require ECDIS to trigger alarms in the following circumstances:

If, within a specified time set by the mariner. the ship will cross the safety contour

If, within a specified time set by the mariner, the ship will cross the boundary of a prohibited area or of a
geographical area for which special conditions exist

When the specified cross track limit for deviation from the planned route is exceeded

If continuing on its present course and over a specified time or distance set by the mariner, the ship will pass
closer than a user-specified distance from a danger (eg obstruction wreck or rock) that is shallower than the
mariner’s contour or an aid-to navigation.

In order for these requirements to be met the navigator has to input the parameters for both depth and beam
clearances and once set, upon checking any passage, ifany hazards are present along the proposed route then
alarms will be generated from the relevant chart at the largest available scale whatever scale is being
displayed on the screen.

ECDIS manufacturers often meet the requirements by allowing users to specify a safety domain for the
vessel, effectively contained by the following parameters:

In depth, by the safety contour and safety depth

In forward extent, by the look-ahead time or look-ahead range
In lateral closeness by a specified distance.

The following diagram which is reproduced courtesy of Dr. Andy Norris clarifies the concept.
Note that the safety domain requires the navigator to input the vessel / voyage specific parameters and so
this must be done at this stage. Best practice would seem to dictate that these parameters should be
established by the Master.

Setting all of these voyage safety features will require type specific knowledge of the ECDIS, underlining
again the importance of specialist training!

The Passage Plan

Once the vessel’s dynamic parameters have been set the passage plan can be created and it is here that the
difference between traditional chartwork and ECDIS working become apparent. Used correctly ECDIS
planning provides for a safer passage but if a navigator is lazy, pressed for time or fatigued etc, then some
important information may be overlooked.

Passage planning on an ECDIS requires exactly the same procedures as for a paper chart and the navigator
must follow the same “best practice” guidelines as per the Bridge Procedures Guide but with ECDIS, the
process is complicated by the fact that the navigator needs to know what information is already incorporated
into the ECDIS and what isn’t and this is where a weakness of ECDIS is exposed. For example if some
changes to buoyage have taken place on the intended passage, a navigator using a paper chart will be aware
of this because the amended buoyage will be pasted on the chart over the old system and is therefore
immediately visible. With ECDIS, as reported in part 1, problems have arisen with synchronising electronic
Notices to Mariners (NtM) updates for ECDIS with the paper equivalent. So on an ECDIS it may not
immediately be apparent as to whether or not the changes been included. Because of this anomaly between
the printed and electronic versions of NtM’s, mariners are currently being advised to check all routes with
the paper NtM’s. Not a good start for ECDIS!!

In addition to checking the NtM’s the navigator still needs to refer to the traditional printed passage planning
documents such as tide & current tables, Lists of Lights, sailing directions, NAVTEXT etc. relevant to the
proposed passage. To make life easier there are an increasing number of companies offering electronic
versions of these references and the UKHO have recently launched an “e-Navigator” service which provides
all the necessary berth to berth ENC chart cells and other services and documentation relevant to the
intended passage in a single download. As ECDIS take-up rates accelerate it is certain that all the major
suppliers will offer full data packages which will remove the current tedious and error prone task of cross
referencing electronic and printed information. However, this additional data can only be provided as an
overlay onto the ENC and must be capable of being removed from the screen by means of a single operator
action.

Once the navigator has all the relevant documentation to hand, the plan can commence and the first thing to
check (that familiarisation again!) is whether waypoints for that passage already exist in the ECDIS
database. If so it can be uploaded for re-use and by running an initial check the ECDIS will verify if the plan
is safe for the dynamic parameters previously set. As well as alerting the navigator to any parts of the plan
that are outside the safety domain parameters, the ECDIS will also alert the navigator to charted features of
relevance on the passage such as traffic separation zones, restricted areas, anchorages etc. How alerts are
presented to the navigator are dependent on the manufacturer with the best automatically jumping to the
problem area and others providing a simple drop down list.

If there is no existing passage in the ECDIS database then the navigator will have to create one. Waypoint
databases are commercially available and some ECDIS manufacturers supply them with the ECDIS but
whilst these are useful, it must be remembered that other vessels are likely to be using the same waypoints
so a prudent navigator may wish to amend them, especially in areas of high traffic volumes such as the
Dover Strait. CNIS at Dover have been frequently amazed to witness many vessels converging onto the
same waypoint when plenty of sea room exists in the sea lane and this was identified as a factor by the
MAIB investigation into the collision between the Dutch Aquamarine and the Ash, which tragically resulted
in one fatality, in 2001.

If no pre-loaded waypoint list exists for the passage then the navigator will have to start from scratch, which
isn’t the easiest procedure on an ECDIS. The main problem that traditional mariners find with this is the
small screen size which makes it difficult to obtain the outline overview obtained from a small scale paper
chart. However, in practice the advantage of the ECDIS is that by putting in the departure and arrival points
any obstructions will be identified and the navigator can then move waypoints and re-check the outline
route. For longer ocean passages the ECDIS really shines since it can instantaneously offer a great circle or
Rhumb line route or a combination of both thus saving much tedious plotting.

Once a viable outline passage has been established it is then essential to check the whole route in detail
using the zooming and scrolling facilities. Although this sounds tedious, it is actually easier and less error
prone than drawing course lines on a series of passage charts of differing scales. However, it is essential that
this process is done with extreme care because, as previously mentioned, many chart features such as
submarine cables are hidden on the different layers of the ENC and essential detailed information such as
notes pertaining to precautionary areas needs to be accessed and analysed for relevance by means of clicking
on the ! symbol to obtain the “pick report” relating to the feature. Yet again, the effectiveness of this plan
analysis is dependent upon the navigator being fully familiar with the particular ECDIS manufacturer’s
operating system!

This pick report is one of the most essential tasks during planning because there are some confusing new
symbols and display anomalies when compared to the paper chart as shown on the following pictures.
What’s this? A hazard of some sort! Dangerous wreck, Rock, underwater rock awash? It could just be depth
unknown but the meaning will only de revealed by interrogating it and checking the object information file.
Traditional symbols have been replaced by a new symbology by default but if the navigator prefers the
familiar object display it can be set via the menus. The following pictures show the difference.

Simplified symbols.

Traditional symbology.

These are just two examples of many ECDIS features that need to be fully understood to ensure a safe
passage. Whilst all the planning is going on the navigator must never forget that he is working on a
computer and he should save the plan at regular intervals to avoid totally losing all the detail in the case of a
“crash”. Yes, that happens!

Best practice guidelines recommend that planning is undertaken ion the back up ECDIS unit so once the
plan has been completed and fully verified it needs to be exported to the primary unit. This is increasingly
done via a data link cable between the two systems. Some commentators have expressed concern that the
main and back up units are linked together by such a cable maintaining that the two units should be totally
independent to avoid any possibility of a virus or Trojan infecting both systems. However, such an
arrangement would require the navigator to create two exactly identical plans for each unit which isn’t
practically feasible. and transferring data by means of a memory stick or CD ROM would pose the same
potential risk of viral infection but I am unaware of any ECDIS units having suffered from such computer
viruses. However, many ECDIS run using the Windows platform and can be connected to the Internet, so
that factor, coupled with the presence of unsecured CD, DVD and USB drives leads some to valid concerns
that it may only be a matter of time before a virus attack happens. One essential factor that mustn’t be
overlooked when transferring the voyage plan is that as a result of the primary and back up ECDIS being
independent, the vessel specific safety depth and domain parameters must be set on each set independently
and a prudent navigator will undertake the final route verification checks on both systems prior to the
passage commencing.

Getting Underway

Once the plan has been saved and exported to the main ECDIS unit at the conning position the passage can
commence and it is here that the advantages for a well trained bridge team are evident but for less well
trained officers, unfamiliar with their ECDIS system, the differences between ECDIS and the traditional
paper chart can result in some important features being overlooked. The performance standards require
ECDIS units to have three display modes: Base, Standard and full

Base Display: This displays the absolute minimum information considered necessary for navigation such as
the coastline, fixed structures and the safety contour. It is not recommended for navigation but some find it
useful for de-cluttering the screen when checking ahead on a small scale.

Standard Display: This is the display for normal navigation and it is a requirement that it can be presented
at any time by a single operator action. In addition to the information of the base display this mode contains
the drying lines, buoys and other navigation marks, prohibited and restricted areas, separation and traffic
routing and precautionary area ( but not the notes!) Despite being the recommended display, this display
doesn’t provide the same information as a paper chart with information such as buoy names and
characteristics, anchorages, submarine cables etc

Full Display: This contains all the information contained within the ENC but due to the amount of data this
mode tends to overload the typical small screens with text overwriting and concealing other objects except
on the largest scales and so again isn’t recommended for navigation. Note that even on this full display
mode much of the paper chart detail such as precautionary notes can only be accessed by interrogating
objects on the chart to display a pick report of the required information.

In practice additional information is added onto the standard display via the ECDIS menu system to the
preference of the watchkeeper but how this additional information is accessed and displayed is not standard
and is left to the whim of the manufacturers. However, once set, many systems now permit different users to
save their preferred display layout.

The fact that important detail isn’t instantly visible represents the key difference between paper charts and
ECDIS. Even with comprehensive type specific training this factor represents the most dangerous aspect of
navigating by means of ECDIS because whereas historically the navigator has become used to all the
necessary information being visible on the paper chart, the vector chart requires the navigator to be
inquisitive and interrogate objects and hunt for additional display features in menus and sub menus.

A full
display. Note the depths less than 7m highlighted but also note that this display doesn’t show the text detail
so information that is readily available can only be accessed by interrogating an object! with such a cluttered
display on a small screen it is easy to overlook important navigational information.

On passage

Assuming the standard display is chosen the ECDIS will automatically choose the largest scale chart
available and the default display mode is North Up with own ship in the centre and true motion so the ship
moves to near the edge of the screen after which it will automatically reset as with true motion radar. Most
navigators find this pretty useless so the menu system offers the same variety of tracking options as the
radar. Most users prefer the centre offset relative motion display but some advanced users on the cruise
liners are increasingly using offset Head Up displays on both radar and ECDIS meaning that the displays
correspond to the visual picture. The heading marker is a fixed line extending to the edge of the screen and
again, in the same way as radar, the vector can be set to either GPS tracking or water tracking. GPS tracking
is indicated by a double arrow head on the vector and water tracking by a single arrowhead. The route is
usually displayed as a solid orange line. The brightness of the screen is adjustable and there are generally
three screen display options of day, dusk and night. Additional care must be taken when in the night mode
because some features, such as precautionary zones can be very indistinct.

If the ECDIS is part of an integrated system then information from other systems such as radar and AIS can
be overlaid on the ECDIS display and this facility can be very useful. In particular the radar image can
provide a valuable verification of the accuracy of the GPS input in coastal water in that the radar land image
should align with the chart display. However it is recommended that such radar overlay isn’t left on
permanently because not only could it mask important data but it also uses additional computing power
which may overload the processors.

On normal passages the ECDIS provides an instant visual position check and alarms sound when a waypoint
approaches or if the vessel wanders off track outside the pre-set safety domain or approaches a shoal or other
charted hazard. One function that an ECDIS cannot currently perform is to integrate live tide data to produce
real time depths so whilst the safety contour and depth settings are fine for normal deep water navigation,
when the vessel needs to transit a tidal dependent area, such as arises in my own port, then the auto checking
of the passage will flag up as being outside the parameters. Third party software can provide tidal data as an
overlay and may also include a passage planning tool to calculate tidal windows etc but such programs
cannot interact with the ENC to produce live depth data. Consequently in tidal restricted areas the safety
domain alarms will need to be disabled.

It is very easy for a watchkeeper to have unreasonable trust in the ECDIS position, reassuringly displayed on
the chart but the verification of position by other means is as essential with ECDIS as with traditional paper
chart navigation because if the GPS is in error then the whole ECDIS is rendered inaccurate and for this
reason traditional navigation verification techniques must be used and tools to facilitate this are required to
be readily available on the primary screen. If the aforementioned radar overlay isn’t available then VRM &
EBL functions enable radar ranges and bearings to be transferred and electronic bearing markers permit
traditional chartwork to be undertaken using visual bearings.

If a GPS error is identified then the input must be disabled and the ECDIS used as a traditional chart using
traditional position fixing techniques but I understand that this is not a user friendly process on many ECDIS
units!

Conclusion

ECDIS is a highly complex electronic tool and still in its infancy so it is inevitable that anomalies in the
charting will be identified and the training of navigators will lag behind the implementation dates. In part 3 I
will be examining some of the problems and accidents that have arisen already along with the
vulnerabilities.

The need for ECDIS to be used with extreme caution was highlighted in February when an ENC error was
identified resulting in the following emergency NAVTEX alert to be issued

Mariners are advised that ECDIS may not display some isolated shoal depths when operating in “base or
standard display” mode. Route planning and monitoring alarms for these shoal depths may not always be
activated. To ensure safe navigation and to confirm that a planned route is clear of such dangers, mariners
should visually inspect the planned route and any deviations from it using ECDIS configured to display “all
data”. The automated voyage planning check function should not be solely relied upon. The International
Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) is leading technical action to resolve this matter. Further information
will be made available through Notices to Mariners.
Such notices are alarming but in a few years time, as new navigators come through colleges having done all
their chartwork exams on ECDIS, the teething problems should have been ironed out and this next
generation of officers will be fully familiar with the operational aspects of ECDIS and navigational safety
should be enhanced. Already, on cruise liners and other well managed ships ECDIS is being used as
intended and the benefits are evident because in addition to the three dimensional safety domain features,
when zoomed right in, a good quality ECDIS can be used as a berthing aid.

Visual assessment for swinging in a restricted area is difficult

 The ECDIS
provides valuable instant and predictive information. Photos: Nigel Allen

Michael Stout
August 18th, 2011 at 19:15

Good day Sir,

I agree with the contents of the letter, currently we are in paperless our ECDIS is only upgrade to 4000MFD.
Some functions like parallel index and others used in paper charts are not available. Our supplier is MARIS
A/S update via EOUS or sometimes by the base and update cd we received from our supplier. There are
times just when i have completed update the cell there are still message just popping up on the display
stating New editions , Re-issued or update for this cell is missing and must not be use for navigations, well
infact my EOUS and ADC Programs are all in the latest update. Do you have any idea how to identify the
T&P on the this model i have search,surf and ask fellow ship’s in our area, transiting having engaged in
paperless they all have the same problems as mine,sir im asking if you have some answers or clue to hwo to
solve this issued. Awaits your prompt reply many thanks in advance

Best regards
1st Officer Stout
MT Torm Gudrun
ECDIS Part 3 : Problems!!
October 21st, 2010 by JCB
Posted in Features, Technical and Training | 2 Comments »

In part 2 I mentioned that one of the key problems of ECDIS was the lack of training, especially type specific
training. I have now piloted around 20 vessels which are navigating solely on ECDIS with no paper charts
and only on four of these have I found all officers fully conversant with the functions and confident that they
could safely navigate their vessel without the familiar paper chart as a back up. Somewhat unsurprisingly
these four vessels were Scandinavian tankers from the top companies and all the officers had attended type
specific courses for their particular ECDIS in addition to the generic ECDIS course offered by the training
colleges. However, in contrast to these examples of “best practice”, on five of these vessels there was only
one officer who understood the ECDIS and its functions and on all of these this was the second officer and
he alone seemed to be totally responsible for planning the voyage and plotting the route on the ECDIS. So
far as I could ascertain, none of the officers, including the 2nd Officer, on these ships had received any type
specific training but had been expected to glean the full operating functions of their particular ECDIS from
the manufacturer’s manual. The manuals from all the manufacturers seem to run to 500 pages or more so
it’s hardly surprising that responsibility for wading through it and getting to grips with the functions is
delegated to the 2nd Mate who is officer traditionally responsible for chartwork and navigation. Of the
remainder of the vessels Admittedly 20 ships is a very small sample and my data collection methodology
probably wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny but as a very rough indicator it would suggest that 20% of vessels
have good understanding and good procedures in place, 60% have a reasonable working knowledge but
worryingly around 20% are at high risk of being involved in a navigational incident either as a result of
ignorance of the ECDIS features of display modes or as a result of single person error by the navigating
officer in planning the passage. This may seem an alarming statement but the dangers are real.

When is a chart not a chart?

Navigation by use of ECDIS requires a totally new thought process which expects navigators to forget the
traditional paper chart and chartwork practice. This revolutionary change to the way ships are navigated has
been neatly summarised by Christian Hempstead, Associate Professor at U.S. Merchant Marine Academy,
who states that “ECDIS-based navigation requires the mental integration of all the displayed digital and
graphical information with the visual scene and with the projected motion of the vessel and with the
surrounding situation as it unfolds”.

The vector chart is a highly complex three dimensional interactive chart which requires not only detailed
knowledge of the vector chart concept but also detailed knowledge of how to access essential
functions, many of which may be hidden away in menus and sub menus. This menu based system for hiding
information is just one of the many operational minefields associated with ECDIS because, as with radar, the
information displayed has not been “user led” but decided by the whims of the multifarious manufacturers!
This manufacturer led development of ECDIS has in effect created one of the most serious problems
with ECDIS because of the conflict it causes with the chart familiarity contained within the STCW95
requirements. There have been concerns in some quarters that whilst the carriage of ECDIS is due to
become mandatory between 2012 and 2018 there is currently no requirement for officers to be trained since
the IMO model course has yet to be incorporated into the STCW requirements. However STCW 95 is
quite specific in that it states that a navigating officer must possess “a thorough knowledge of and ability to
use navigational charts and publications…” He must show “…..evidence of skills and ability to prepare for
and conduct a passage, including interpretation and applying information from charts”. Therefore If
ECDIS is used in place of a paper chart, the navigator must demonstrate the same degree of knowledge and
competency concerning the use of ECDIS as with a conventional chart. I have recently piloted a Finish Ro-
Ro vessel fitted with ECDIS and all the officers had been on a 4 day course for the model fitted to their
company’s fleet of vessels. This course was in addition to the 5 day generic ECDIS course that they had
already attended but would not be valid if they transferred to a vessel fitted with a different system.
Whatever happens, all this reveals a fundamental weakness in the ECDIS concept whereby although the
official Electronic Navigation Chart (ENC) displayed by the ECDIS can only be produced and updated by
authorised hydrographic offices to very strict performance standards, the way in which this official chart
data is accessed for use has been left to the manufacturers! As to how officers would be trained to use the
system wasn’t given much consideration thus leavingthe e hapless mariner to muddle along the best he an!

Different ECDIS = Different Screen & Menus! Photos: JCB

With so many different manufacturers and so many different operating systems how is the shipping industry
going to cope? Just getting officers through the generic course is going to be a serious challenge within the
time frame but getting the type specific training as well is a potential quagmire! In order to clarify the
training requirements for ECDIS a revision to the STCW 95 was adopted by the IMO at the Manila
conference in June this year which will come into force on 1st January 2012. So, are we going to see ships
delayed because no officer has had the appropriate type training? I very much doubt it because, the way I
interpret the amendment, the IMO requirements stop short of actually making the ship owner responsible
for ensuring that their watchkeepers are fully type specific trained! Indeed the wording contained within the
Manila amendment seems to pass the ultimate responsibility onto the seafarer! The responsibilities of
companies is contained in section B-1/14 ;

1. Companies should provide ship-specific introductory programmes aimed at assisting newly employed
seafarers to familiarize themselves with all procedures and equipment relating to their areas of
responsibility It seems that its the interpretation of “introductory programmes” that’s important here! This
could be merely to ensure that training manuals are put on board since the same B-1/14 also states under
“crew members” that:

4.“Immediately upon arriving on board for the first time, each seafarer has the responsibility to become
acquainted with the ship’s working environment, particularly with respect to new or unfamiliar equipment,
procedures or arrangements.

5 Seafarers who do not promptly attain the level of familiarity required for performing their duties have the
obligation to bring this fact to the attention of their supervisor …. and to identify any equipment, procedure
or arrangement which remains unfamiliar”.

Note that for companies the requirement is that they “should provide” but the seafarer “has responsibility”.
Could this mean that if a company ensures that appropriate instruction manuals are placed on board but the
new crew member fails to read / understand them and then fails to notify anyone that he hasn’t then he is at
fault rather than the company? Perhaps I’m just getting cynical in my old age!

MV “CFL Performer”
So, is all this ECDIS training necessary or are the concerns just alarmist exaggerations? The answer is
provided by the MAIB who have already investigated several ECDIS related groundings of which the most
revealing is the grounding of the CFL Performer. This vessel is a general cargo ship built in 2007 fitted with
an approved ECDIS and therefore doesn’t carry any paper charts. In April 2008 the ship was carrying
6020 tonnes of Bauxite from Paramaribo to the Humber and because the Master was concerned about
arriving in time for the tide the route was amended on the ECDIS to take a short cut through the
Haisborough Sands to the pilot boarding ground. However, an error was made whereby the course was set to
pass over a sand bank rather than in the adjacent channel and the vessel duly went aground. It was daylight
at the time with good weather. Fortunately, the Master was able to refloat the vessel using the engines and
there was minimal damage and no pollution.

The subsequent investigation by the MAIB highlighted several failings, all directly attributable to
unfamiliarity with the ECDIS on board. Firstly, it is almost certain that had the passage been amended by re-
drawing the courses on a paper chart, the course across the shoal would have been immediately evident but
this initial error was compounded by the 2nd Mate who was on watch at the time. Quoting from the report,
shortly before the grounding, “the master, who was in his cabin, felt a change in the vessel’s vibrations. He
called the second officer and instructed him to check the depth of water. The second officer looked at the
ECDIS display and reported to the master that there was no cause for concern. The depth sounder was not
switched on”. Since he didn’t put the echo sounder on it seems that the 2nd Mate glanced at the ECDIS and
seeing that the vessel was on track was satisfied that no danger existed! Whilst alongside at Grimsby the
vessel was detained due to deficiencies by Port State control and one of the deficiencies was that the ship’s
officers weren’t trained in the use of ECDIS and one of the non conformities found during an ISM audit of
the vessel by Lloyd’s was the navigating officers’ lack of familiarity with, and incorrect use of, the ECDIS
system on board.

When the vessel had been commissioned, the owners had ensured that the Captain and 1st Mate received
type specific training but this wasn’t provided for officers who subsequently joined the ship and the MAIB
found the following:

Of the officers on board at the time of the grounding, neither the chief officer nor the second officer was
trained in the operation of ECDIS, but both had used such equipment on previous ships. The master had no
previous experience or training on ECDIS or any other form of electronic navigation system. None of the
officers were aware of the significance of the safety contour, the safety depth, and the shallow and deep
contours, and did not know how to establish a watch vector ahead of the vessel, or its significance. They
also did not know how to use the ‘check page’ to ensure that all course lines and associated channel limits
were clear of navigational dangers. With reference to type specific training, the report makes the following
observation:

The chief and second officers on board CFL Performer had used an ECDIS on previous ships. However, the
factors listed in Paragraph 2.2 indicate that neither had an acceptable working knowledge of the operation
of the Furuno FEA-2107. Although ECDIS’ must meet the specific performance standards set by the IMO,
manufacturers inevitably vary aspects of equipment operation in order to remain commercially competitive.
This has led to differences between systems in terms of menus, terminology and equipment interface. Such
differences can be marked and, although operations manuals are provided, these are not always easily
understood. A mariner’s proficiency in the use of a particular system is therefore undoubtedly best served by
the provision of equipment-specific training, regardless of any previous training and experience.

To me that statement seems to confirm that the commercial interests of the manufacturers rather than the
needs of the mariner have been allowed to dictate ECDIS development! The other aspect of ECDIS use
highlighted in this report is the change in mental attitude of a watchkeeper using ECDIS and the report
makes the following observation with respect to this:

“…the OOW relied on ECDIS alarms to warn when the vessel was approaching an alteration of course or
was more than 185m off the intended track. In effect, the monitoring of the vessel’s progress was undertaken
by the ECDIS, while the OOW spent much of his watch preparing for forthcoming audits and passage
planning. The second officer presumed that the vessel would be safe providing she remained within the
channel. Consequently, he paid little attention to where the vessel was heading, and did not:

-Investigate the significance of the South Haisbro’ cardinal mark and the Mid Haisbro’ starboard conical
buoy, which the vessel passed at a distance of about 1 mile;

-Check the new course before altering

-See the eddies or disturbed water…

-Ensure that the echo sounder was switched on, particularly when the master raised concern regarding the
depth of water.
Such actions are fundamental to the duties of an OOW, and would have undoubtedly helped to identify the
shallows ahead of the vessel in sufficient time for successful avoiding action to be taken. ECDIS provides a
potentially invaluable asset to passage planning. However, there is a danger that many bridge watchkeepers
will increasingly trust what is displayed without question. As this case demonstrates, such trust can be
misplaced. The need for bridge watchkeepers to remain vigilant and continuously monitor a vessel’s
position in relation to navigational hazards remains valid, regardless of the electronic aids available.

Feedback from deep sea pilots and concerned masters suggests that such practices are alarmingly
commonplace amongst the younger officers!

Other Problems
Even if the watchkeepers have been fully trained to use their particular ECDIS ,there are an increasing
number of operational problems being uncovered during usage, including some potentially serious
problems with the actual official ENC data that underpins it.

Screen size

One universal complaint that I have encountered is the small screen area actually available on the ECDIS
screen for the chart display. The specification is for a minimum screen size of 27cm x 27cm which,
compared to a paper chart, is minuscule but the vast majority of ECDIS displays that I have seen have been
that size or only slightly larger. Obviously the size dates from the inception of ECDIS over a decade ago
when LCD screen monitors were still in development and even the flat screen cathode ray tube TV was a
novel and expensive innovation, but with a good quality 23 inch (59cm) monitor now costing less than £200
and even a 42 inch (107cm) public display monitor costing less than £1000 it does beg the question as to
why the ECDIS manufacturers / suppliers aren’t offering larger displays. I realise that the ECDIS requires
rigid screen specifications but that’s what the developers should be working on especially since a 42inch
display would fit very neatly into the redundant chart table!! The problem of screen size is confirmed by the
following complaint posted on the Nautical Institute’s ECDIS forum (www.nautinst.org/ECDIS/index.htm)

Due to the size of the screen, an over view of the problems when checking passages, explaining to
navigators where I want to go etc, if the range is increased on the ECDIS it is very hard to see small items of
information, particularly soundings near to the course line. This has led to what could be called near misses
in the passage planning stage. The only way to check the passage plan effectively is to decrease the range to
say 6 miles and then keep moving the screen along over the course. Time spent in this when on a relatively
short passage of say 400 miles is rather time consuming and not a very effective use of time. Also with short
turnarounds in port it can at times be an issue.

Other problems that I have been made aware of are too numerous to list here but an example of confusing
anomalies is the following screen shots taken by a deep sea pilot where changing ranges caused part of a
charted bank to totally disappear!
Most ECDIS seem to run on standard computers under the Microsoft Windows operating system and most
ECDIS only vessels that I have piloted have experienced the hard drive failures, crashes, screen freezing
and slow running common to all computers. Fortunately, the back up unit has enabled the navigation of the
vessel to continue safely but I have received one report of a black out where the emergency generator failed
to start so both ECDIS units failed. Although power was restored fairly rapidly it apparently took a
considerable time to reboot the ECDIS. Fortunately, this occurred well out to sea but the consequences of
such a failure in confined waters are worrying. The good news is that I haven’t yet heard of any ECDIS
being infected by a virus or trojan but some observers believe that such an attack is inevitable!

The Electronic Navigation Chart (ENC)

As detailed in parts 1 & 2 the heart of an approved ECDIS is the ENC which is produced by registered
hydrographic offices to very exacting data standards known as S-57. However, the ENC is highly complex
and although the data is exactly the same as for a paper chart, in order to prevent overloading the navigator (
that small screen again) much of the data present on a paper chart is stored away on different layers or is
accessed by clicking on charted “objects” to obtain detailed information via what is termed a “pick
report” The adjacent photos show a paper chart and the equivalent ECDIS standard display of the same
area. This is an interesting chart area because it contains many features which, in my opinion, reveal some
serious anomalies in the ENC data formatting.
As can be seen all of the written information is missing from the ECDIS display and whilst some detail will
appear when the range is changed, other information can only be obtained via a pick report. This particular
area of the Thames Estuary isn’t a compulsory pilotage district for certain classes of vessel up to 90m in
length so this lack of chart information can cause major problems for even the best run vessels and the VTS.
For passage planning purposes, a navigator setting a course through the Precautionary Area on a paper chart
will immediately notice the fact that this is an area where anchoring is prohibited and can check the printed
notes on the chart. During the transit, the watchkeeper will be familiar with the symbology and read the
notes and exercise the required caution whilst transiting. In contrast, on the ECDIS, the missing text,
combined with the lack of shading delineating the Oaze Precautionary Area is very confusing with the two
caution areas being so close. The only way that a navigator will discover the legend “vessels other than
fishing and pleasure craft are to avoid this zone” is by wading through the pages of data that are presented
when a pick report for the area is requested. As to how many navigators will have either the time or
inclination to undertake the laborious process of getting pick reports for areas along their proposed route is
another question that needs to be addressed! It also explains the reason why all watchkeepers who I have
encountered prefer the raster electronic chart to the official vector ECDIS. Is this text information actually
important in 2010? Well yes, because if VTS broadcasts information relevant to a precautionary area, a
navigator unfamiliar with the district will have no way of knowing if the information is relevant to his vessel
unless this information has been accessed and noted as part of the passage planning process. It is also no use
for just the navigator preparing the passage to be aware of this information because whoever is on watch at
the relevant time also needs to be aware. Quite how this can be achieved is problematic but best practice
would suggest written notes, either on screen or hard copy, to accompany the passage should be produced
but again this would be a very laborious and time consuming process which would seem to defeat the object
of electronic charting. In my opinion, practical usage aspects such as this represent a fundamental failure of
the developers of ECDIS to comprehend how competent navigators actually use a paper chart! This isn’t an
exaggeration because in this particular area the place where this missing text causes the most problems
in practice is the Mouse Anchorage. This anchorage is used by the small vessels prior to entering their
compulsory pilotage districts for London or the Medway so they are frequently requested to anchor there by
VTS, but how is a navigator expected to know where it is on an ECDIS if he’s never visited the port before?
The answer to that question was part of the reason for my writing this part 3 ECDIS feature. Having heard
several small vessels report in to VTS with their details and, upon being instructed to anchor in the Mouse
anchorage to await their pilot, requesting the Latitude and Longitude of the anchorage, my (and other pilots)
thoughts were naturally that “if he doesn’t know where the mouse anchorage was he should take a pilot”! It
was only whilst piloting an ECDIS only vessel that I noticed the absence of the name on the anchorage and
discovered that even by changing ranges the name didn’t appear. Checking the other named
anchorages revealed the same problem. Interestingly the numbered and lettered individual anchorages off
Southend and Shoebury do appear when the display is zoomed in (Z12 & W1 in the top left of the above
ECDIS picture). So how does a navigator find the names of the general anchorage areas? Well, if he
doesn’t know where the anchorage is then the answer is that it’s almost impossible especially on the above
ECDIS display! On the screen shot the vessel Fast Sam is at anchor in the Mouse anchorage
whose boundary is very faintly marked by a pecked magenta line. To find the name of this anchorage the
navigator first has to find it and then click within it which provides a bewildering index of information about
the anchorage, but not the name!

I consider myself to be a relatively normal human being so I assumed that it would be contained in the
“General Information” page. Wrong! This page actually contains data about the ENC rather than the
area that was clicked on. To get the name of the anchorage it is necessary to click on the 11th index item
“anchorage Area” and this finally brings up the name!
 photos JCB

So, what this actually reveals is that the hapless Captain is actually taking the only practical course of action
open to him by asking the VTS for the Latitude & Longitude of the anchorage but such a request could
potentially cause the vessel to be classed as “non compliant” for port entry with all the
associated implications for the vessel and owners.

Strange symbology!

The problems don’t just end with this missing text data because I have also discovered that the actual
delineation of areas is seemingly not only different to the established symbology of the paper chart but is
again left up to the manufacturers. I have already noted that the lack of boundary shading on
the Precautionary Area limits make it difficult for the navigator to readily differentiate between the
Precautionary Area and Restricted zone but there are also anomalies with respect to the magenta boundary
markings. On the paper chart there are crossed anchors at regular intervals along the boundary so
it’s immediately obvious to any navigator that anchoring is prohibited within this area but on the ECDIS no
such crossed anchor symbols exist. Instead they have been replaced by a single ( again very faint) crossed
anchor adjacent to the exclamation mark. On other ECDIS they have replaced the shading with inward
facing pointers and have placed light magenta hatching across the area to help the navigator but again the
crossed anchors are missing from the boundary having again been replaced by an insignificant
single crossed anchor symbol hidden within the area! The inclusion of crossed anchors on a boundary
obviously isn’t a problem for manufacturers because the same ECDIS had crossed anchors bordering the
Yantlet dredged channel although it’s interesting to note that on the paper chart there are no crossed anchors
on that Channel boundary but rather crossed anchor symbols at regular intervals within the channel. In view
of the potential dangers of navigators misinterpreting chart information it is difficult to comprehend why the
display specifications for ECDIS doesn’t require the retention of established chart symbology!

Satellite Failure

ECDIS is a satellite only position fixing system so currently relies totally on the GPS signal being received.
A total or partial loss of GPS signal will result in an ECDIS becoming inaccurate and therefore a
navigator must know how to plot visual bearings or radar range and bearing information onto the ECDIS to
obtain a position. Again, this vital function has been left to the manufacturers to incorporate and on many
ECDIS the process is so complicated as to be not fit for purpose, despite the requirement for such a feature
to be integrated. I have noted that the vast majority of watchkeepers not only haven’t a clue as to how to
undertake such manual plotting but many were totally unaware that such plotting was actually possible. That
training issue again! However, on ECDIS only tankers I have been informed that many vetting inspectors
now include manual plotting on ECDIS as part of their checks and consequently I understand that the latest
generation of ECDIS are now required to have a simple plotting facility instantly available from the main
menu display. Just don’t ask about celestial navigation plotting on an ECDIS!

The biggest problem with GPS position errors however is not the manual plotting but the psychological
aspect of a navigator seeing the ship on the chart and not believing that it is possible that the displayed
position could be in error. In the same way that SATNAV causes lorry drivers to drive into farms or into
rivers, there have been many cases of navigators refusing to accept that the GPS could be in error despite
visual and radar references indicating that something is incorrect and simulator trials have confirmed
that this is a serious problem. With the GLONASS satellite system being upgraded and the EU’s Galileo
system due to come on stream in a few years, there are already multi system satellite receivers
being produced which will take positions from a greater number of satellites and thus effectively eliminate
such position errors and with most ships now having at least two satellite receivers, aerial problems, such as
caused the grounding of the cruise ship Royal Majestyin 1995, should no longer be an issue. Despite this
potential to eliminate satellite positioning errors, a growing area of concern is jamming of satellite signals.
Although I’m unaware of any serious deliberate jamming attacks on GPS, there have been several
reported cases of inadvertent disruptions from a variety of sources that have caused havoc to on-board
systems, usually in congested port areas. However, with GPS jammers readily available on line from as little
as £25 deliberate jamming is potentially a serious threat especially if road usage tax policies become a
reality. In order to assess the impact of jamming on commercial shipping, Trinity House have undertaken
GPS jamming trials and I will include a report on these in the next issue?

One solution to prevent outages caused by jamming could have been e-Loran which Trinity House have
been developing with the General Lighthouse Authorities (GLA’s) with considerable success but last year
the USA announced the dismantling of the Loran Stations in the US so the future of this project is currently
in doubt. Another possible solution came to me whilst piloting a ship with an electronic chart overlay on the
radar. With common photo applications now capable of face and feature recognition it occurred to me that it
should be fairly straightforward for and “intelligent” ECDIS to examine a radar image of the land and, if
there was any discrepancy with the satellite positioning to align itself with the radar coastline. I have made a
few enquiries regarding this concept and I understand that some companies are working on this
so remember, you read it here first!

Conclusion

As an overall concept, ECDIS has the potential to enhance navigational safety by incorporating charting into
the integrated bridge console displaying information specifically tailored to that particular vessel’s safety
parameters and it was this safety potential that persuaded IMO to introduce the compulsory carriage
timetable. For the ship owners the advantage is that it removes the need to place vast folios of charts on
board a ship which all require to be kept corrected but a fair percentage of which might never be used.
Licences can just be purchased for charts relevant to a particular passage and if the trading area changes then
it’s a simple matter to purchase the licences to access the charts for the new trade. For the ship, the tedious
process of checking / updating folios and chart correcting is removed. The problem is that, in order to please
the manufacturers and to encourage them to develop the systems, the needs of the end user have been
sidelined and consequently there are a bewildering number of different ECDIS with a myriad of different
operating systems incorporating incompatible menu systems. The situation was bad enough with radar but
chartwork is so fundamental to the safety of a vessel that a comprehensive knowledge of not just the concept
of the vector chart that underpins ECDIS but also the type specific functionality is essential. This need is
only now being addressed seriously, but with so many different systems and so many navigators to be
trained it is almost inevitable that there will be more groundings such as that of the CFL Performer!

In my mini survey I have discovered that all navigators prefer the paper chart to ECDIS and given the choice
would prefer the raster chart with its familiar display to the vector chart. Even on the best run vessels
with highly trained officers I have yet to find any officer who is enthusiastic about ECDIS or who believes
that the ECDIS is the ultimate solution to navigation practice. In contrast the momentum has been driven by
those ashore who are convinced that ECDIS is the ultimate solution to navigation safety. Such a chasm
between the proponents and end user is regrettably a hallmark of the commercial maritime world.

JCB

UPDATE 4/2012

As ECDIS usage increases some serious problems are being identified

ECDIS is a computer designed to display the Electronic Navigation Chart (ENC) but whilst the ENC is
strictly controlled, the user interface features that the navigator uses to navigate has been left entirely to the
manufacturers! Consequently there isn’t any standard format for essential navigation functions.

Training problems have been well documented but other factors are now emerging that are just as serious
and which tend to highlight the folly of permitting unregulated user formats.

Following the identification of serious display errors on some ECDIS, last year the International
Hydrographic Office (IHO) sent a CD to all vessels to check that their ECDIS was correctly displaying the
ENC data. Of the thousands sent out only 500 responses have been received and of these 2/3 revealed minor
problems but 1/3 revealed serious problems. With these 500 probably being returned by the top end of the
ECDIS fitted shipping it is probable that display errors are even more common than the limited returns
reveal.

How can this happen? Basically, shipping companies have considered that purchasing an ECDIS is the same
as a radar. You purchase the set, put it on board and call in a technician to fix it when it goes wrong and so
they don’t take out an expensive software maintenance contract with the supplier.

Confusion abounds because the actual ENC’s do require an update and correction contract so many believe
that this also covers the display software. Not so! The ECDIS is a computer running software and like all
software, bugs are identified and fixes are made by means of software updates. Therefore If the company
hasn’t got a contract their display software may rapidly become obsolete. However, although a service
contract isn’t currently a carriage requirement the IMO, realising that older ECDIS may not be able to
display new features, issued SN.1/Circ.266, which states “ECDIS that is not updated for the latest version
of IHO Standards may not meet the chart carriage requirements …” Despite this the IHO tests have
revealed that there are potentially thousands of vessels still sailing with faulty ECDIS. Some manufacturers
such as JRC have openly admitted to bugs in their display software and have requested that users of their
equipment contact them for relevant update. Other companies have been more secretive and the IHO test has
revealed the alarming fact that there are no records of which ships are fitted with ECDIS.

With even the manufacturers having no records of where much of their equipment is fitted there is growing
concern that ECDIS implementation is a fundamentally flawed process! JCB

April 2014: A paper highlighting some of the ECDIS vulnerabilities has been published by the NCC Group.
You can read it here:

2 Responses to “ECDIS Part 3 : Problems!!”

Paul Drouin
November 6th, 2010 at 12:57

Thank you very much for an excellent article.

It all points to a rather rocky introduction of ECDIS in the following years – probably will keep the accident
investigators busy.

Mike Pearsall

November 22nd, 2010 at 17:22

Thank you for your article – an interesting read. I agree that the insufficiently-controlled introduction of
ECDIS over the past decade or so has resulted in a huge variation in training and implementation standards.
Hopefully some of the recent work by the IMO will go some way toward rectifying this – and perhaps S-100
and similar improvements/revisions to the standards over coming years will also have a positive impact.

Noting your relative proximity to our offices, I’d like to invite you (the author!) to a free open day/press
conference we are holding in December. Please email me directly if this is of interest to you.

To other readers, may I offer the services of our organisation, ECDIS Ltd (www.ecdis.org), to anyone with
training or consultancy needs concerning regulations or the systems of any manufacturer. We are always
glad to help.

General Frequently Asked Questions

Questions

1. What is a System ID?

2. What is a User.usr file?
3. What is an eToken key?
4. How to order Jeppesen products?
5. What are the different products and different versions of the database?
6. One off Purchase or subscription license, what’s the difference?
7. DVD or CD-ROM?
8. SENC versus ENC?
9. Updating ECDIS on Multi-Workstation mode

Answers
1. What is a System ID?

A unique system identity enables Jeppesen to provide chart licenses and other services to systems on an
individual basis. This is necessary in order to ensure correct licenses and correct media (CD/DVD) to be sent
to a system. The system Id is on system level and not end-user. Simply because an end-user (ship) can have
several systems onboard, and each of the systems requires a unique license.

One license can only be used in combination with the system Id which it has been made for and which is
entitled to use it.

The individual system Id can be provided by either a file named user.usr or by an e-Token key.

2. What is a User.usr file?

Jeppesen (C-MAP) initially launched a concept for manufacturers whereby the ECDIS computer generated a
file (named user.usr). A user.usr file contains internal "fingerprints" from the computer.
Unfortunately this sometimes lead to problems, like if any internal parts of the ECDIS being replaced i.e. the
graphic board or a dongle-key that belongs to the ECDIS software, the user file changes some characters. As
the license has been made for the user.usr file based on exact information, it will become invalid once any
minor change appears in it.

3. What is an eToken key?

In order to overcome these problems (see A2), the Aladdin eToken was launched in 2001-2002. This is a
simple small key to be inserted in a USB port of the ECDIS.

Contrary to user.usr file which allows its content to change, all information to provide the unique identity is
in the e-Token itself, and the content of the e-Token never changes.

Neither is it necessary to extract any information from the ECDIS to submit correct identity. All the operator
needs to do in order to identify the system is to read the short number that is written on the tag connected
with the e-Token key.

Similar to a user.usr file, a password/license made for an e-Token will work only in combination with the
particular key which it is made for.

4. How to order Jeppesen products?

The System identification may be called the technical identification. All Jeppesen Commercial Marine
products and its appurtenant services are for the professional High seas market. The majority of users
subscribe to the updating service in order to keep the navigational charts updated. It is therefore necessary to
receive also a commercial identification. The most significant information needed is the IMO number of a
ship. Furthermore is information of invoice address and shipping address important. Required chart
coverage must also be stated in the order.

For C-MAP Professional and Professional+ the coverage can be determined from our zone chart on the web.
Order form can be requested by using the online contact form.

C-MAP ENC is not divided into predefined service areas like above, but sold on a cell by cell basis.
Therefore the C-MAP Chart Catalogue is available on our website. The Chart Catalogue enable one to create
or import a specific route, then select the width of the corridor and the scales required before making the
order as an electronic file.

5. What are the different products and different versions of the database?

Jeppesen Marine provides a range of different products and services. Some which are different chart
databases for use to Navigation and other which are software applications for use of charts in an office. In
addition are vessel services like Real Time Updating of charts and Weather forecast. Etc.

This paragraph is meant to clear away any misunderstanding or confusion that may arise between “Different
database products” and “Different versions of the database”.

Database products:

1. C-MAP ENC contains all available official ENC charts and legally replace the need of paper charts when used
in ECDIS and supported by a real Time Update service. The Chart database can be supplied on CD and DVD
2. C-MAP Professional+ contains nautical charts that have been derived from paper charts and digitized into
CM-93/3 format. This database is used as a navigation aid and does not replace the need of paper charts.
Supplied on DVD
3. C-MAP Professional - same as above, but with less charts and without supplementary information like tides,
sea-routes etc. Supplied on CD. (Only limitation to the content is the CD. If an ECDIS upgrade from CD-ROM
drive to DVD drive, Professional+ can be supplied instead at no extra cost)
Database versions:
All C-MAP databases are subject to continuously updating. All notice to Mariners and all new chart editions
published by Hydrographic Offices are added to all products. Therefore a new version of the database is
being closed on a weekly basis and given a subsequent increasing number. This enables us to distinguish
between older and newer databases and to determine exactly when it was closed. I.e. in week 14, 2008 the
C-MAP Professional+ version 345 was made and at the same time C-MAP ENC version 269 was made.
Next chapter indicates why it sometimes is important to know what version of the database is installed in
order to create a valid license.

6. One off Purchase or Subscription license, what’s the difference?

One off Purchase

A “one off purchase” license is a permanent license with no time limitation. Permanent licenses are only
available for Professional and Professional+, not for ENC. It is often used for systems not being used for
navigation, like offices, vessel tracking, survey etc. A “one off purchase” requires a license given to one
particular issue of the database. This means in effect that no future updating service applies. A newer
database version (updating) will require a new license.

Subscription:

Contrary to a “one off purchase” license, a subscription license last for a certain period of time, usually the
current month + 12 months. A subscription license will prior to expiration warn the mariner with a message
in the ECDIS that it needs to be renewed. A subscription license is not depending on the version of the
database. A new chart database is sent to the ship on a regular basis. In addition, corrections (NTM) can be
downloaded via email or our website.

7. DVD or CD-ROM?

From 1993 to 2003 all C-MAP charts to the professional high seas market was supplied on CD-ROM. In
2003 the amount of charts and supplementary information in the C-MAP Professional+ database, like sea-
routes, tide tables, etc had reached a volume that exceeded the storage capacity of a CD-ROM. Therefore a
long and painstaking process to get manufacturers to move from CD-ROM drive to DVD drive in their
ECDIS started.
With slightly more than 90 different manufacturers offering C-MAP products it has been (and still is) quite a
process to get all of them to move from CD to DVD. Only a very few are still providing CD drives.

Therefore in order to distinguish between these two databases, the one supplied on DVD was named C-MAP
Professional+, while the one supplied on CD-ROM kept its original name; C-MAP Professional.

PS! Both are of course subject to updating with new charts and NTM’s. Difference is only that the C-MAP
Professional doesn’t contain supplementary information and must be kept limited with number of charts.

8. SENC versus ENC?

ENC are vector charts issued by Hydrographic offices. These are made in S-57 format and mostly supplied
in IHO encryption format S-63.

The S57/S63 format is first and foremost designed to exchange data between computers.
Before it can be finally stored into an ECDIS computer it must be converted to the ECDIS internal System
ENC (SENC) format.

Jeppesen provides SENC format to more than 90 manufacturers, which of 25 makes a type Approved
ECDIS. The compilation and verification from ENC to SENC is being performed by Jeppesen before the
final SENC product is sent to the ship.
It is preferable that this process takes place in a controlled environment and by experts as the S-57 data
format specifications can be interpreted differently and therefore there is a risk of using non-compliant data.
This data should not be accepted into the ECDIS, as it could cause malfunctions, incorrect information or, in
the extreme case, cause the ECDIS to crash.

A further advantage of SENC distribution is that the navigator on-board does not have to
spend considerable time and patience required to convert the ENC's to the SENC, a process that requires the
ENC to be 100% compliant. ENC supplied in SENC format simply requires to insert the DVD/CD and by
well-known Windows technology: “Copy and Paste”

A further advantage of SENC distribution is that the navigator on-board does not have to spend considerable
time and patience required to convert the ENC's to the SENC, a process that requires the ENC to be 100%
compliant. ENC supplied in SENC format simply requires to insert the DVD/CD and by the well-known
function “Copy and Paste” the entire database is being installed in less than five minutes.

The distribution of ENC in SENC format has been approved during the Athens CHRIS meeting in April
2002. Most HO's admit that it simplifies access to official digital cartography, and it does not affect on IMO
performance

9. Our ECDIS Systems work on Multi-Workstation Mode. Thus, we are only applying updates to one System.

Please advise whether we are required to update both systems independently even though they are connected
by LAN? If this is the case, we will have to send TWO Update Order Files? kindly advise.

Even though the two ECDIS are connected via LAN, this is basically to share information, internal exchange
or from different sensors like GPS, Gyro etc.
The Chart databases are however individual and not shared through this LAN. Therefore they must be

updated individually (one by one) with both new DVD and Online (NTM's)

Electronic Chart Display and Information System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electronic navigational chart (NOAA)

An Electronic Chart Display & Information System (ECDIS) is a computer-based navigation information
system that complies with International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations and can be used as an
alternative to paper nautical charts. IMO refers to similar systems not meeting the regulations as Electronic
Chart Systems (ECS).[1]

An ECDIS system displays the information from electronic navigational charts (ENC) or Digital Nautical
Charts (DNC) and integrates position information from position, heading and speed through water reference
systems and optionally other navigational sensors. Other sensors which could interface with an ECDIS are
radar, Navtex, automatic identification systems (AIS), and depth sounders.

Application
ECDIS provides continuous position and navigational safety information. The system generates audible
and/or visual alarms when the vessel is in proximity to navigational hazards.

Electronic chart data

The two most commonly used types of electronic chart data are listed below.

ENC charts

ENCs are vector charts that conform to the requirements for the chart databases for ECDIS, with
standardized content, structure and format, issued for use with ECDIS on the authority of government
authorized hydrographic offices. ENCs are vector charts that also conform to International Hydrographic
Organization (IHO) specifications stated in IHO Publication S-57.[2]

ENCs contain all the chart information necessary for safe navigation, and may contain supplementary
information in addition to that contained in the paper chart (e.g., Sailing Directions). These supplementary
information may be considered necessary for safe navigation and can be displayed together as a seamless
chart. Systems using ENC charts can be programmed to give warning of impending danger in relation to the
vessel's position and movement. Chart systems certified according to marine regulations are required to
show these dangers.

Raster charts

Raster navigational charts (RNCs) are raster graphics charts that conform to IHO specifications and are
produced by converting paper charts to digital image by scanner. The image is similar to digital camera
pictures, which could be zoomed in for more detailed information as it does in ENCs. IHO Publication S-61
provides guidelines for the production of raster data.[3] IMO Resolution MSC.86(70) permits ECDIS
equipment to operate in a Raster Chart Display System (RCDS) mode in the absence of ENC.[4]

Regulations
ECDIS (as defined by IHO Publications S-52 and S-57)[5] is an approved marine navigational chart and
information system, which is accepted as complying with the conventional paper charts required by
Regulation V/19 of the 1974 IMO SOLAS Convention.[6] as amended. The performance requirements for
ECDIS are defined by IMO and the consequent test standards have been developed by the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in International Standard IEC 61174.[7]

In the future, the ENC will be part of a product specification family which is based on the "IHO Universal
Hydrographic Data Model", known as S-100. The product specification number S-101 has been assigned to
the ENC. [8]