RIN / MAIB "digital navigation" webinar Nov 16th

[RunAgroundHard]

In the introductory section 2 on Carriage Requirements every reference applies to commercial use of vessels regardless of whether it is a fishing, sport or pleasure vessel. Am I missing an explicit reference to recreational small vessels? If not, then this matters not to anyone who is not engaged in the commercial business of sailing.

Correct, it only applies to leisure vessels in the UK that are coded to operate commercial and will be implementing a full digital solution for navigation i.e. paperless. There is a push by the RYA for "digital first", which does not mean all digital, but recognises that leisure sailors are using consumer products over paper charts, and will continue to do so. In my opinion, many consumer products for navigation are acceptable and safe. However, I think there is a blind spot with the digital charts. Take for example, Savvy Navvy, their chart package is out of date in some areas of Scotland by a country mile. So the capability of using poor digital charts that would allow you to navigate into danger, is very real; they have been informed of this. It is one reason why ENCs are required as they have an update service built into the specification and supply, no doubt at a cost.

 

[requiem]

Your iPad is not type approved and very likely never will be for navigation. I have some experience of asking Apple to type approve (another technical requirement) that their product could easily meet, and they refused.

I'm not too surprised at that; the manufacturer certification would likely be the most challenging aspect. Having to spend significant money on "certified" hardware that may be little different from off-the-shelf offerings at a tenth the cost would sting.

And... you've just made me realise one other item that's missing... the spec is nearly entirely about the software, not the hardware. I've been mainly thinking about the software aspects, because 1) people already make hardware for industrial environments and 2) it's where I see missing functionality in the leisure offerings.

But... what if I take an industrial panel computer and install an appropriate SV-ECS application on it? What precisely would the maker of the panel computer be certifying, as I didn't see any listing of environmental specifications, etc?

 

[RunAgroundHard]

... But... what if I take an industrial panel computer and install an appropriate SV-ECS application on it? What precisely would the maker of the panel computer be certifying, as I didn't see any listing of environmental specifications, etc?

There is a technical specification for ECDIS e.g. colour palette specification display, refresh rates, zoom clarity et cetera. The standard normalises functionality so that any navigator, who is trained in ECDIS, working with any ECDIS will see the same thing and have the same experiences. The colour palette is also tied to standards for eyesight and watch keeping. The point is to make sure that any digital navigation system reduces risks of being unable to navigate to as low as reasonably practical, by a certified and competent navigator, using compliant equipment.

My opinion is that there should be different levels of risk applied, and thus different levels of technical compliance, based on categorised waters being sailed e.g. category 1 and 2 vessels would have something different to category 2 and 3 vessels. I suppose MGN319 is trying to do that based on vessel size. The end point should be a consumer based leisure system that can be used for navigation that is not restrictive due to technical over specification and cost. For example, ENCs could be displayed on iPads or consumer plotters, and that is where it ends for vessels sailing in certain scenarios within limitations.

There is a reason that small, compliant systems failed to be sold, they were too expensive and over specified compared to buying a few paper charts. Real world experience suggests that we are all doing fine without mini ECDIS compliant systems. It could be argued that the risk profile for commercial operations in small vessels is different, even if it is assumed that they are at sea for longer than leisure sailors. I don't think that stacks up, when you consider the shear volume of RTW, Trans Atlantic sailors, and even more retirees sailing all summer around Europe, UK and WCofS.

I think the MCA have missed a trick here, as well as RIN and RYA in getting leisure sailors access to cost effective, digital only navigation systems based on categorised waters. Current leisure, consumer market plotters are easier and safer than the approved for navigation paper charts.

 

[dunedin]

In the introductory section 2 on Carriage Requirements every reference applies to commercial use of vessels regardless of whether it is a fishing, sport or pleasure vessel. Am I missing an explicit reference to recreational small vessels? If not, then this matters not to anyone who is not engaged in the commercial business of sailing.

It is purely for commercial vessels. Doesn’t prevent a private vessel fitting, but that would be entirely optional.

 

[lustyd]

It is purely for commercial vessels. Doesn’t prevent a private vessel fitting, but that would be entirely optional.

Small private vessels. There are different requirements for private vessels starting at 14m and the requirements get more onerous with length.

 

[lustyd]

There is a technical specification for ECDIS e.g. colour palette specification display, refresh rates, zoom clarity et cetera. The standard normalises functionality so that any navigator, who is trained in ECDIS, working with any ECDIS will see the same thing and have the same experiences. The colour palette is also tied to standards for eyesight and watch keeping

It's this sort of outdated stuff that makes me dislike these standards. Entirely based on the output of committees and group think. There is absolutely zero real world benefit to rigid colour palettes, far better to have user customisation to suit the individual currently using it. I get it for safety critical scenarios like air traffic control or nuclear installations where the staff must match the system rather than the other way around, but for navigation it's unnecessary. This kind of stuff harks back to the era when red light was considered better for "night vision" which has been thoroughly disproven as well.

 

[justanothersailboat]

Doesn't "small commercial vessel" affect every sail training school and hence what everyone would have to be taught on?

 

[requiem]

There is a technical specification for ECDIS e.g. colour palette specification display, refresh rates, zoom clarity et cetera. The standard normalises functionality so that any navigator, who is trained in ECDIS, working with any ECDIS will see the same thing and have the same experiences. The colour palette is also tied to standards for eyesight and watch keeping. The point is to make sure that any digital navigation system reduces risks of being unable to navigate to as low as reasonably practical, by a certified and competent navigator, using compliant equipment.

Right. I may have missed it, but these are mostly software aspects; I don't see this new standard requiring colour calibration of the display as a full ECDIS might. We've had colour displays for some years now, and in terms of avoiding over-spec'ing it would seem simplest to leverage existing standards so that existing hardware can be used without needing additional certification.

I.e. if the application supports it and the display is large enough, even iPads should be viable. Apple shouldn't need to provide an "SV-ECS"-specific certification statement that iPads are capable of running nav software and that they can display the proper colour gamut.

My opinion is that there should be different levels of risk applied, and thus different levels of technical compliance, based on categorised waters being sailed e.g. category 1 and 2 vessels would have something different to category 2 and 3 vessels. I suppose MGN319 is trying to do that based on vessel size. The end point should be a consumer based leisure system that can be used for navigation that is not restrictive due to technical over specification and cost. For example, ENCs could be displayed on iPads or consumer plotters, and that is where it ends for vessels sailing in certain scenarios within limitations.

That would be an appropriate end goal. However, I don't really see much purpose in differentiating between, say, Sea Area A2 vs A3. Do you use a different technique on paper charts based on that? Fetch forth the brass dividers instead of aluminium? I do see ship size being relevant; a tanker poses a very different risk profile compared to a small motor launch.

It would be good for consumer plotters to add in the missing functionality*, and ideally both the leisure crowd and the small business crowd would then be able to share equipment at a reasonable price point. I mention the iPad because this is currently easily attainable without great cost, (apart from the costs of S-63 charts).

*I'd argue that functionality should have been there from the start; these aren't terribly difficult features, and not having them on consumer plotters is a large part of why I use my iPad.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

... However, I don't really see much purpose in differentiating between, say, Sea Area A2 vs A3. Do you use a different technique on paper charts based on that?

Yes, I do. I sail by pilotage in some areas compared to coastal navigation in other areas. Risk profile changes as well. Boat design recognises, so why not plotter design and functionality requirements? Anyway, it doesn't really matter now because the die have been cast and small commercial boats that require to go fully digital will need to meet the requirement to get coded.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Doesn't "small commercial vessel" affect every sail training school and hence what everyone would have to be taught on?

Only if they want to go fully paperless. As long as they have paper charts, from a recognised authority, it does not need to impact them. The RYA is not demanding that all RTCs go fully digital, just that digital needs to be taught because that reflects the way many leisure users are sailing.

 

[lustyd]

requiring colour calibration of the display

The very idea of colour calibration on a boat is pure insanity. Colour calibration depends on ambient light so unless there’s a consistently lit little room in the boat it’s a waste of time.

 

[lustyd]

Only if they want to go fully paperless. As long as they have paper charts, from a recognised authority, it does not need to impact them. The RYA is not demanding that all RTCs go fully digital, just that digital needs to be taught because that reflects the way many leisure users are sailing.

But both UK suppliers of paper charts have indicated they intend very strongly to cease selling and updating paper. So the RYA can say what they like but it has to happen.

 

[justanothersailboat]

...the paper charts that are down to one provider, which is desperate to stop? the paper charts that are getting harder to get? In practice I don't think sea schools are going to get out of this one.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

...the paper charts that are down to one provider, which is desperate to stop? the paper charts that are getting harder to get? In practice I don't think sea schools are going to get out of this one.

No they are not going to get out of this once paper goes. I don't know what the RYA has done about this, but RTCs and especially small sailing schools with tight margins, will not appreciate this unwarranted and expensive change to their vessels. Once again, the consumer will have to pay through a price hike on course fees, or the RTC will have to settle for smaller profit margins. Of course notice has been given, so a prudent business will start planning for this change now. It is well communicated.

 

[requiem]

The very idea of colour calibration on a boat is pure insanity. Colour calibration depends on ambient light so unless there’s a consistently lit little room in the boat it’s a waste of time.

And yet it's a thing: Color calibration for ECDIS

However, for smaller craft I agree that it should not be a thing, nor that it even needs to be. I should be able to buy a tablet or laptop, install the appropriate software, connect it to the boat, and have a valid system. If it needs to be rated IP-whatever due to the location, that's fine: it's an existing international standard.

 

[lustyd]

And yet it's a thing: Color calibration for ECDIS

Of course it is. That's because they started with "we need a standard, what can we put in it?" Not with "what does a boat need for navigation?". Even worse, the type of people who want to be on those committees like to feel important, so they make the standards as large as possible, and have as many meetings as they possibly can.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Of course it is. That's because they started with "we need a standard, what can we put in it?" Not with "what does a boat need for navigation?". Even worse, the type of people who want to be on those committees like to feel important, so they make the standards as large as possible, and have as many meetings as they possibly can.

This is exactly my experience with API standards. Individuals dominate certain sectors with their opinions, technically competent, but the standards contribute little to improved safety or productivity. Instead administration, bureaucracy and costs increase.

 

[Marsali_1]

"we need a standard, ..." The buggers even regulate where you can drive on the roads...the pure affrontery of it. If I choose to drive on the right in a clapped out transit van because it is more convenient then why should a bunch of bureaucrats be allowed to create a Highway Code?

 

[st599]

No they are not going to get out of this once paper goes. I don't know what the RYA has done about this, but RTCs and especially small sailing schools with tight margins, will not appreciate this unwarranted and expensive change to their vessels. Once again, the consumer will have to pay through a price hike on course fees, or the RTC will have to settle for smaller profit margins. Of course notice has been given, so a prudent business will start planning for this change now. It is well communicated.

Another problem is the requirements to only use official data with known accuracy. That means that all the useful info that is added from harbour masters, marinas etc. that is added to paper charts and commercial software cannot be added to this.

If this is an add on to a recreational chart plotter, it may be affordable, if not and it's a product for a small number of vessel, no chance. RTCs and clubs will not install them.

 

[lustyd]

The buggers even regulate where you can drive on the roads...the pure affrontery of it. If I choose to drive on the right in a clapped out transit van because it is more convenient then why should a bunch of bureaucrats be allowed to create a Highway Code?

You’ve missed the point entirely. Driving law for the most part is sensible. This is more like the driving while using a phone law. Utterly pointless. Or if they legislate that cars can’t be blue of green in case you mistake them for sky or grass.