27
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 IMOe‐NavigationConcept
TheIMOMaritimeSafetyCommittee(MSC)atits81st
session decidedto include, in the work programmes
of the NAV and Radiocommunications and Search
and Rescue (COMSAR) Sub‐Committees, a high
priority item onʺDevelopment of an e‐Navigation
strategyʺ with the NAV Sub‐Committee act
ing as
coordinator. NAV 52, which met in July 2006, was
instructed to give preliminary consideration to this
importanttopic.
The aim was to develop a strategic vision for
e‐Navigation, to integrate existing and new
navigationaltools,inparticularelectronictools,inan
all‐embracingsystemthatwillcontributetoenhanced
navigational safety (wit
h all the positive
repercussions this will have on maritime safety
overall and environmental protection) while
simultaneouslyreducingtheburdenonthenavigator.
Asthebasictechnologyforsuchaninnovativestepis
already available, the challenge lies in ensuring the
availabilityofalltheothercomponentsofthesystem,
includingelectronicnavigationalcharts,andinusing
iteffectivelyinordertosimplify,tothebenefitofthe
mariner, the display of the occasional local
navigational environment. e‐Navigation would thus
incorporat
enewtechnologiesinastructuredwayand
ensure that their use is compliant with the va
rious
navigational communication technologies and
services that are already available, providing an
overarching, accurate, secure and cost‐effective
systemwiththe potentialtoprovideglobalcoverage
forshipsofallsizes.
The IMO entrusted Norway to coordinate the
work of developing a proposal for an IMO strategic
implementation plan for the global e‐Navigation
concept.AsCoordinatorof theIMOCorrespondence
Group on e‐Navigation and a C
hairman of IMO
Working Groups (NAV, COMSAR and STW) on
e‐NavwasnominatedMrJohnErikHagen.
Implementation of e‐Navigation should be a
phased iterative process of continuous development
Prioritized Main Potential Solutions
for
the e-Navigation Concept
A.Weintrit
GdyniaMaritimeUniversity,Poland
ABSTRACT:InthepapertheAuthor,amemberoftheInternationalMaritimeOrganization’sCorrespondence
Groupone‐Navigation,outlinestheprioritizedsolutionsfore‐Navigationconceptformulatedatthebeginning
of 2013. He presents the details of internal CG’s discussions, different national positions after the
announcement by the chairm
an of the group, Mr John Erik Hagen, the working material in this case. The
hiddenpurposeofthisstudyistoshowthestyleandpace ofthe IMOworkinggroup, detailsregardingthe
exchange of posts and the formation of a final common position. Author presents just three weeks working
withtheCGone‐Navinthelens,doingitwiththeconsentofallpart
icipantsinthisdiscussion.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 7
Number 1
March 2013
DOI:10.12716/1001.07.01.03
28
including, but not necessarily limited to, the steps
showninthefigure1.
1.2 IMOCorrespondenceGroupone‐Navigation
During the work on practical e‐Navigation a
relatively large number of solutions have been
developed. Based on the main goal in the decided
strategy for development and implementation of
e‐Navigation (MSC 85/
26/Add.1, Annex 20) and the
terms of reference given by NAV 58, the focus will
nowbeontheFSAandtodevelopaprioritizedlistof
RCOs.
This work will be based on the list of solutions
giveninNAV58/WP6rev.1Annex2(PreliminaryList
of Potential e‐Navigation Solutions), plea
se see
table1.
Figure1. Potential components of an e‐Navigation
implemen‐tationprocess(MSC85/26/Add.1,Annex20)
In the definition and scope of the strategy plan
(MSC85/26/Add.1,Annex20,paragraph1)itisstated
that e‐Navigation is about harmonized collection,
integration, exchange, presentation and analysis of
marineinformationonboardandashorebyelectronic
means.
Based on previous inputs on the draft regarding
identification of hazard and risk assessment,
C
hairman of the Group proposed a way forward
prior to the feasibility evaluation which might be to
carry out updates including revision and
simplification of the description of IMO FSA
methodology.
The e‐Navigation objective is to enhance berth to
berth navigation and related services for safety and
security at sea and protection of the ma
rine
environment.
Hence, it would be necessary to integrate and
prioritize the list of solutions given in NAV/58/WP6
rev.1 Annex 2 (Preliminary List of Potential
e‐Navigation Solutions, which has nine main
solutions) to a maximum of five main practical
solutions,coveringshipboard andshore‐ba
sedusers,
that would demonstrate a workable and efficient
transferofmarineinformation/databetweenshipand
shoreandvice‐versa.
Accordingly,itwassuggestedthattheCGshould
focusitsattentiononthefollowingcriteria:
1 Seamless transfer of data between various
equipmentonboard;
2 Seamless transfer of electronic exchange of
informat
ion/databetweenshipandshoreandvice‐
versa;
3 The work should be based on systems that are
alreadyinplace(accordingtothealreadyadopted
IMO’s e‐Navigation strategy (MSC 85/26/Add.1,
Annex20)anddevelopmentofpotentialfuturistic
carriage requirements should therefore be strictly
limited;
4 CG should not concentrate on det
ermining cause
ofmarinecasualties;and
5 Listof potential e‐Navigationsolutions should be
limitedsolelytoachieve1and2above.
2 PRELIMINARYLISTOFPOTENTIAL
E‐NAVIGATIONSOLUTIONS
10 January 2013 Chairman of the IMO
Correspondence Group on e‐Navigation John Erik
Hageninvit
edthe members oftheGroup to provide
inputforfinalizingamaximumoffivemainpractical
solutions,based ontheattachedlistofsolutionsgiven
in NAV/58/WP6 rev.1 Annex 2 (Hagen, 2013).
PreliminaryListofPotentiale‐NavigationSolutionsis
presentedintable1.
Table1.Preliminarylistofpotentiale‐Navigationsolutions(NAV58/WP6rev.1Annex2)
No. Shortdescription
Primary
userneed
Usertype
Otheruser
needs
Hazarddescription
S1 Improved,harmonizedanduser‐friendlybridgedesign
S1.1 Ergonomically improved and harmonized
bridgeandworkstationlayout
Improved
ergonomics
Shipboard
user
Familiariza‐
tionre‐
quirements
Suboptimal performance or accident
duetolackoffamiliaritywithbridge
equipment/slowresponseduetonot
finding the correct infor‐
mation/control/alarm
S1.2 Extendeduseof standardizedandunifiedsym‐
bologyforrelevantbridgeeq
uipment
Standardin‐
terface
Shipboard
user
Improved
ergonomics
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to misinterpretation of infor‐
mation or problem locating correct
information
29
S1.3 Standardizeddigitalfamiliarizationmaterialfor
relevantequipment
Familiariza‐
tionre‐
q
uirements
Shipboard
user
Standardin‐
terface
Suboptimal performance or accident
duetolackoffamiliaritywithbridge
e
q
ui
p
ment
S1.4 Standard default settings, save/recall settings,
and S‐mode functionalities on relevant equip‐
ment
Standardin‐
terface
Shipboard
user
Familiariza‐
tionre‐
quirements,
Improved
er
g
onomics
Suboptimalperformance or collision
andgroundingduetolackoffamili‐
aritywithbridgeequipmentorusing
settingsnotappropriatetotask
S1.5 All bridge equipment to follow IMO BAM
(Bridge Alert Management) performance stand‐
ard
Alertman‐
agement
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to not responding to relevan
t
alert
S1.6 Informationaccuracy/reliabilityindication func‐
tionalityforrelevantequipment
Indication
ofreliability
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to actions taken based on inac‐
curateinformation
S1.6.1Graphicalornumericalpresentationoflevelsof
reliability together with the provided infor‐
mation
S1.7 Integratedcentralbridgedisplaysystem(INS)
fo
rimprovedaccesstoshipboardinformation
Effective
androbust
communica‐
tions
Shipboard
user
Improved
ergonomics
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to not applying available infor‐
mation/overburdening
S1.8 GMDSSequipmentintegration–onecommon
interface
Effective
androbust
communica‐
tions
Shipboard
user
Suboptimalperformanceorfailure to
mitigate accident due to poor com‐
muni
cation
S2 Meansforstandardizedandautomatedreporting
S2.1 Single‐entryofreportableinformationinsingle‐
windowsolution
Standard‐
izedandau‐
tomatedre‐
p
ortin
g
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
duetodistraction/highworkload
S2.2 Automated collection of internal ship data for
reporting
Standard‐
izedandau‐
tomatedre‐
p
ortin
g
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
duetodistraction/highworkload
S2.3 Automated or semi‐automated digital distribu‐
tion/ communication of required reportable in‐
formation,includingbothʺstaticʺdocumentation
andd
y
namicinformation
Standard‐
izedandau‐
tomatedre‐
p
ortin
g
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
duetodistraction/highworkload
S2.4 All national reporting requirements to apply
standardizeddigitalreportingformatsbasedon
IMOFALFormsandSN.1/Circ.289
Standard‐
izedandau‐
tomatedre‐
p
ortin
g
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
duetodistraction/highworkload
S3 Improvedreliability,resilienceandintegrityofbridgeequipmentandnavigationinformation
S3.1 Standardized self‐check/built‐in integrity test
(BIIT)withinterfaceforrelevantequipment(ex.:
b
rid
g
ee
q
ui
p
ment
)
Improved
reliability
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
causedbybridgeequipmentfailure
S3.2 Standardendurance,qualityandintegrityverifi‐
cationtestingforrelevantbridgeequipment,in‐
cludin
g
software
Improved
reliability
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
causedbybridgeequipmentfailure
S3.3 Performinformationintegritytestsbasedonin‐
tegration of navigational equipment – applica‐
tionofINSinte
g
rit
y
monitorin
g
conce
p
t
Improved
reliability
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to actions taken based on inac‐
curateinformation
S3.4 Improved reliability and resilience of onboard
PNT systems by integration with external sys‐
tems
Improved
reliability
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to poor information from PNT
s
y
stems
S4 Integrationandpresentationofavailableinformationingraphicaldisplaysreceivedviacommunicationequipment
S4.1 Integration and presentation of available infor‐
mation in graphical displays (including MSI,
AIS,charts,radar,etc.)receivedviacommunica‐
tionequipment
User‐
selectable
information
receivedvia
communica‐
tionequip‐
ment
Shipboard
user
Maritime
SafetyIn‐
formation
(MSI),Im‐
provedtar‐
getdetec‐
tion,Guard
zones
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to m
isinterpretation of infor‐
mation or problem locating correct
information, information overload
andpoorsituationalawareness
S4.1.1Implementa Common Maritime Data Structure
andincludeparametersforpriority,source,and
ownershi
p
ofinformation
S4.1.2Standardized interfaces for data exchange
should be developed to support transfer of in‐
formation from communication equipment to
navi
g
ationals
y
stems
(
INS
)
S4.1.3Provide mapping of specific services (infor‐
mation available) to specific regions (e.g. mari‐
time service portfolios) with status and access
re
q
uirements
S4.1.4Provision of system for automatic source and
channel management onboard for the selection
of most appropriate communication means
(equipment)accordingtocriteriaas,bandwidth,
content,inte
g
rit
y
,costs
S4.1.5Routeing and filtering of information on board
(
weather,intendedroute,etc.
)
:
30
i. Develop of SW/HW (module (S)) for pro‐
cessing, filtering and transfer/routeing of infor‐
mation exchanged via communication equip‐
ment to the appropriate applications on board,
e.g.navigation,otherbridgeapplications(safety,
security)andotheronboardapplications
ii.ProvidefunctionalityaspartofINStoprocess
and filter exchanged information received via
co
mmunicationequipmentforrelevancetoves‐
sel, route, and conditions, ensuring delivery
(routeing)andpresentationofsafetyrelevantin‐
formationonINStasks(displays)
iii. Provide an administrative HMI interface in
INStaskconceptforidentifyingupdatesandset‐
ting of presentation rules based on route plan,
vessel characteristics, INS ta
sks supported and
otheruser‐selected
p
riorities
S4.1.6Providequalityassuranceprocesstoensurethat
all data is reliable and is based on a consistent
common reference system (CCRS) or converted
tosuchbeforeinte
g
rationanddis
p
la
y
S4.1.7Implement harmonized presentation concept of
information exchanged via communication
equipment including standard symbology and
text support taking into account human factors
andergonomicsdesignprinciplestoensureuse‐
ful
p
resentationand
p
reventoverload
S4.1.8Develop a holistic presentation library as re‐
quired to support accurate presentation across
dis
p
la
y
s
S4.1.9ProvidealertfunctionalityofINSconceptstoin‐
formation received via communication equip‐
mentandinte
g
ratedintoINS
S4.1.1
0
Harmonization of conventions and regulations
fornavi
g
ationandcommunicatione
q
ui
p
ment
S5 Informationmanagement
S5.1 Improveddisplayofstatusofavaila
b
ledataand
indicationofavailableupdates
Automated
updatingof
baselineda‐
taanddoc‐
uments
Shipboard
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to overburdening/out of date
navigationaldocumentation
S5.2 Automated and timely updating of Electronic
navigational charts (ENCs), nautical publica‐
tionsandotherdocumentation
Automated
updatingof
baselineda‐
taan
ddoc‐
uments
Shipboard
user
Provisionof
information
tovessels
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to overburdening/out of date
navigationaldocumentation
S5.3 Electronic information to be searchable to the
appropriateshipboarduser
Effective
androbust
communica‐
tions
Shipboard
user
Improved
ergonomics
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to not applying available infor‐
ma
tion/overburdening
S5.4 Task‐
b
asedinformationmanagement Effective
androbust
communica‐
tions
Shipboard
user
Improved
ergonomics
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to not applying available infor‐
mation
S6 ImprovedaccesstorelevantinformationforSearchandRescue
S6.1 Automatednetworkforcommunicationandda‐
ta coordination/distribution among SAR stake‐
holders
Effective
communica‐
tionandin‐
formation
sharin
g
SARuser Failure to mitigate accident due to
poorSARoperationcoordination
S6.2 AutomatedSARinformationcollection Effective
communica‐
tionandin‐
formation
sharin
g
SARuser Accessto
relevantin‐
formation
withinthee‐
Navdomain
Failure to mitigate accident due to
poor situatio n awareness/lack of in‐
formation
S7 Improvedreliability,resilienceandintegrityofbridgeequipmentandnavigationinformationforshore‐basedusers
S7.1 Shoremonitoringof quality/integrityofnaviga‐
tion systems, quality of onboard information
andeffectivenessofcommunications
Qualityas‐
surance
Shore‐
b
ased
user
Improved
reliability
Suboptimal performance or accident
duetonavigationorcommunication
equipment failure/poor onboard
navi
g
ationdocumentation
S8 Improvedandharmonizedshore‐basedsystemsandservices
S8.1 Integratedsystemforimprovedandharmonized
presentationofdomainawareness
Manage‐
ment of in‐
formation
Shore‐
b
ased
user
Improved
targetdetec‐
tion
Suboptimal performance or accident
causedbypoorsituationawareness
S8.2 Standardized and unified symbology for rele‐
vantshoreequipment
Manage‐
ment of in‐
formation
Shore‐
b
ased
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to equipment symbol misinter‐
p
retation
S9 ImprovedcommunicationofVTSserviceportfolio
S9.1 ImprovedcommunicationofVTSserviceportfo‐
lio
Provisionof
information
tovessels
Shore‐
b
ased
user
Suboptimal performance or accident
due to not applying available infor‐
mation
31
3 ANSWERSOFTHECORRESPONDENCE
GROUPMEMBERS
3.1 ThepositionofNorway(dated18January,2013)
With reference to e‐mail of January 10, 2013,
concerning prioritization of solutions, John Leon
Ervik, Head of pilotage and VTS Department in
Norwegian Coastal Administration, proposed the
following5prioritizedsolutions(Ervik,2013):
S1:Improved, harmonized and user‐friendly bridge
design;
S2:Means for standardized and automated
reporting;
S4:Integration and presentation of available
information in graphical displays received via
communication equipment. Solution 4 can be
merged with Solution 8: Improved and
harmonizedshore‐basedsystemsandservices;
S5:Information Management. Solution 5
can be
merged with Solution 9: Improved
CommunicationofVTSServicePortfolio;
S7:Improved reliability, resilience and integrity of
bridge equipment and navigation information
forshore‐basedusers;
3.2 ThepositionofGermany(dated22January,2013)
With reference to e‐mail of January 10, 2013, Florian
Motz,ProjectManagerfrom
Fraunhofer–Institutefor
Communication, Information Processing and
Ergonomics FKIE, in conveying the position of an
experts working group in Germany, proposed the
following 5 prioritized solutions “to demonstrate a
workable and efficient transfer of marine
information/data between ship and shore and vice‐
versa covering shipboard and shore‐ba sed users”
(Motz,2013):
S2:Means for standardized and automated
reporting;
S3:Improved reliability, resilience, and integrity of
bridgeequipmentandnavigationinformation;
S4:Integration and presentation of available
information in graphical displays received via
communication;
S6:Improved access to relevant information for
SearchandRescue;
S9:Improved Communication of VTS Service
Portfolio.
The solutions were selected to fulfil best the goal
given by Chairman. Germany was as well in
preferencefore.g.,solution:
S1:Improved, harmonizedand user friendly bridge
design, which is very important and should be
addressedinthefuturee‐Navigationprocess,but
they restricted ourselves to the suggestion
of
only5solutions.
Germany did not support the proposal made by
Norway(section3.1 – e‐mail dated 18 January 2013)
were Norway suggest that e.g. Solution 4 can be
mergedwithsolution8.Thesesolutionsarefocusing
oncompletedifferentobjectives.
Thesolutionsarerelated,butif itwill
bedecided
to merge solutions, than Germany would suggest to
keepalldistinct9solutions.
3.3 TheanswerofNorway(dated22January,2013)
Jon Leon Ervik from Norwegian Coastal
Administration supported, in general, the comments
and the suggestions from Germany. He suggested
however to change solution S6: (Improved access
to
relevant information for Search and Rescue) with S8
(improved and harmonized shore‐based system
services). This is because the MRCC is included in
solution8.
S2:Means for standardized and automated
reporting;
S3:Improved reliability, resilience, and integrity of
bridgeequipmentandnavigationinformation;
S4:Integration and presentation of
available
information in graphical displays received via
communication;
S8:Improved and harmonized shore‐based system
services;
S9:Improved Communication of VTS Service
Portfolio.
3.4 TheanswerofGermany(dated22January,2013)
Germany, represented by Florian Motz, agreed in
general with the proposal made by Norway, but he
suggested to
use Solution 1, which was originally
suggestedbyNorway,insteadofsolution8.
“S1: Improved, harmonized and user friendly
bridge design” seems to be more crucial than to
harmonize the shore base systems in regard to
improved and harmonized presentation (S8.1) and
standardizeandunifiedsymbologyforrelevantshore
equipment(S8.2).
So, Germany suggested now the following 5
solutions(Motz,2013):
S1:Improved,harmonized and user friendly bridge
design;
S2:Means for standardized and automated
reporting;
S3: Improved reliability, resilience, and integrity of
bridgeequipmentandnavigationinformation;
S4:Integration and presentation of available
information in graphical displays received via
communication;
S9:Improved Communication of VTS Service
Portfolio.
3.5 ThepositionoftheIHO(dated22January,2013)
The IHO Secretariat, represented by Giles Bessero,
Director of the International Hydrographic
Organization,offeredfor considerationthefollowing
comments(Bessero,2013):
1 NAV58/WP6/Rev.1 Annex 2 provides a
ʺpreliminaryʺ list of 38 potential e‐
Navigation
solutionsgroupedunder9mainheadingsS1toS9.
NAV 58 endorsed the list asʺwork in progressʺ
(ref.NAV58/14,paragraph6.39).Fiveheadings(S1
toS5)refertoʺShipboardusersʺ;S6referstoʺSAR
usersʺ;S7toS9refertoʺShore‐basedusersʺ.
2 Theʺpreliminary
ʺ list attached in Annex 2 to the
draft report dated 5 Sept. 2012 contains an
enriched list with 57 solutions under 13 ma in
headingsS1toS13.TheadditionalheadingsS10to
S13 introduces solutions for shore‐based users
32
with the same description as solutions for ship‐
based users described under headings S1, S2, S4
and S5. Additional solutions are proposed under
headingsS5,S6andS7.
3 There is no clear definition of the domains
associated with each heading and there is some
potentialoverlapbetweenheadings,i.e.
S1andS3,
S2, S4 and S5, as far as solutions relevant to
shipboardusersareconcerned.
4 Therefore, it seems necessary to clarify which list
shouldbeusedasthereferenceanditissuggested
that the selection of practical solutions should be
based on individual solutions Sx.y/Sx.y.z rather
thanonSxheadings.
5 MrHagen further suggests inhis e‐mail thatʺthe
CG should focus its attention on the following
criteriaʺ,asabasis forintegratingandprioritizing
thelistofpotentialsolutions:
1 Seamless transfer of data between various
equipmentonboard;
2 Seamless transfer of
electronic exchange of
information/data between ship and shore and
vice‐versa;
3 Theworkshouldbebasedonsystemsthatare
already in place (according to the already
adopted IMOʹs e‐Navigation strategy (MSC
85/26/Add.1, Annex 20)) and development of
potential futuristic carriage requirements
shouldthereforebestrictlylimited;
4 CG should not concentrate on determining
causeofmarinecasualties;and
5 Listof potentiale‐Navigationsolutions should
belimitedsolelytoachieve1and2above.
6 The IHO expresses concern that criteria focusing
onlyonseamlesstransferofinformationmightnot
encompass the core objectives of e
‐Navigation
which require also, among others, to improve
decision support and to put human factors and
ergonomicsatthecoreofsystemdesign.
7 TheIHOdoesnotwishtoinfluencetheselectionof
the main practical solutions at this stage,
consideringthattheselectionshouldbedrivenby
explicit
usersʹrequirementsfirst.
8 As the competent authority for the provision of
hydrographic services, the IHO stands ready to
assess related solutions, such as S4.1.x, S5.1, S5.2
forshipboardusersandtheir equivalentforshore‐
basedusers,iftheyareretainedinthepreliminary
selection.
3.6 ThepositionoftheNautical
Institute(dated24
January,2013)
David Patraiko, FNI, Director of Projects in the
Nautical Institute, informed about position of the
NauticalInstitute(Patraiko,2013).
The Nautical Institute (NI) has been participating
inthee‐Navigationdebatesinceitsinceptionin2006,
has consulted itsmembership as to their user needs,
and has worked closely with all sectors of the
industrytotrytounderstandtheimpactandroleofe‐
Navigation. In 2009, the NI and IFSMA submitted a
comprehensive list of Seagoing User Needs (NAV55
INF.8),whichwaslargelyacceptedandadoptedinto
theexistinge‐Navigationdocumentation.
Further to
this list, the NI offers the following
consideration of priorities. It should be noted that
manyofthemareinterdependentandtheyacceptthat
there may be several other priorities for work or
systems that may be needed before these objectives
canbeachieved.
3.6.1 Usability
e‐Navigationmustbe,
andcontinueto be,usable.
This stems from the very ‘compelling need’ (MSC
81/23/10) agreed in the original work package.
Ensuring usability also lies at the core of essential
issuessuch asergonomics, training and competency.
Therecanbenoone‐offtestforusability;ithastobe
the subject
of continual assessment, taking into
account the need for systems to remain usable
through the whole process of updates, repair, and
renewal. Usability criteria will also have to address
the reduction of single person error, the response to
system failure, and any change in the role of the
navigatordue
toevolvinguseoftechnology.
Practical solutions for usability may include but
notbelimitedto:
existingISOusabilitystandards;
adherencetotheprocessofUserCentredDesign;
theuseofstandardsymbology
longtermcontractsforthemaintenanceandrepair
ofhardwareandsoftwarebothashore
andatsea.
This will need to apply to the potential solutions
S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S9.
3.6.2 DataQuality
It is clear that life in an e‐Navigation world will
extensivelyuse,andthereforeincreasinglyrelyupon,
data in digital format. As this data will
be used to
inform decisions that will result in safety, security,
environmentalprotectionsandcommercialefficiency,
it is essential that it is accurate, or that the user is
aware of the likelihood of inaccuracies. Data quality
willalsohavetoaddressPositioning,Navigationand
Timing(PNT).
Failure to ensure an acceptable
quality and
security of data will undermine the very concept of
e‐Navigation.
This will need to apply to the potential solutions
S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8andS9.
3.6.3 OnboardINSwithS‐Mode
It seems that the existing IMO INS standard
alreadyaddressesmanyof
theUserNeedsidentified,
such as improved ergonomics, alarm management,
improved reliability, standardized interface and the
improveduseofguardzones.
Practical solutions might include the
implementation of INS in compliance with usability
standardsandenhancedwithS‐Mode,displayofMSI,
an e‐Pelorus and communication links. Information
management
features within the INS might address
automated reporting, automated updating, and
decisionsupportfeatures.
This will need to apply to the potential solutions
S1,S2,S3,S4,andS5.
33
3.6.4 Communicationtransparency
Robust and effective communication will be
essentialtoe‐Navigation,althoughtheNIunderstand
thatthespeedandbandwidthmaybevariablebased
upontheessential natureofthedata(includingvoice
data)thatneedstobecommunicated.Atpresentthere
isaplethoraofcommunicationoptions,
anditcanbe
assumedthat inthe futurethere will be many more,
offering different speed, capacity and cost options.
Beyond the priority for communication to be robust
and reliable, they recommend that technology
transparencyshouldalsobemadeapriority.Thegoal
shouldbeforacommunication(HMI)
interfacetobe
usable. Users should not be focused on technology
(i.e. VHF, Sat‐C, etc...) but rather on ‘how’ to
communicate(i.e.pointtopoint,broadcast)andhow
suchcommunicationsshouldsupportoperationsand
decisionmakingbothatseaandashore.
Practicalsolutionsmightincludethegreateruseof
standardized
communication interfaces (HMI), the
greater use of automated messaging, and a greater
focusontheroleofcommunicationduringnavigation
training.
This will need to apply to the potential solutions
S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8andS9.
3.6.5 Evolutionaryimplementation
It is generally accepted that e‐Navigation
is an
evolutionary concept, and therefore continuous
improvement should be a priority. Many individual
‘solutions’willbeabletobedemonstratedandtested
onalimitedbasisinordertoassesstheireffectiveness
and usability and to obtain essential user feedback
priortofullscaleimplementation.
There are a number of
existing ‘testbeds’ and
regionalprojectsthatare running.Thereshouldbea
concertedefforttoensurethattheyareuserneedsled,
and that lessons learned based on user feedback are
co‐ordinated, harmonized and applied to
e‐Navigationonaglobalbasis.
This will need to apply to the
potential solutions
S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8andS9.
3.6.6 Conclusion
The Nautical Institute recognizes that
e‐Navigation has a wide scope. It is a concept that
will, and should, evolve over time in support of
improved safety, security and environmental
protection, and where appropriate should enhance
commercial
efficiency. However, we need to start
somewhere.
ThecurrentINScouldaddressmanyoftheissues
plaguingshipboardusers,suchasalarmmanagement
and reliability. However such systems (or any
systems)musthaveaneffectiveplanforupdatesand
maintenance.
There are a number of commercial products, and
manymore
tocome, that mayenhancethe exchange
of data for the purpose of improved safety and
efficiencybothatseaandashore.Theextenttowhich
these systems and services integrate with an e‐
Navigation environment or alongside it must be
addressedasapriority.
Thevalueofrobustandreliable
PNTwillhaveto
be assessed, probably on a regional basis. Multi‐
receiver systems on board offer some improvement.
However,theprovisionofmorerobustsystemssuch
as e‐Loran, automatic radar plotting, inertial
navigation, or even the e‐Pelorus will need to be
takenintoaccountwhenassessingrisks
tosafetyand
the management of commercial traffic. Although the
provisionofPNTmaydifferonaglobalbasis,itwill
beessential thatpositionfixingandassessmentofthe
reliabilityisstandardformarinersinternationally.
Theeffectivenessandsuccessofe‐Navigationwill
ultimately rely on the industry’s ability to
ensure
usability, data quality, system reliability, and the
provisionofinformationtosupportdecisionmaking.
These areas will all be essential within an
e‐NavigationImplementationPlan.
3.7 ThepositionofDenmark(dated25January,2013)
Thomas Christensen, Project Manager, Danish
Maritime Authority, noted that the previously
announcedschedulefor
theCGhasbeenalteredand
anewwayforwardfortheCGappearstohavebeen
set.
Denmark acknowledges the huge effort that has
been delivered by Norway, and the fact that such a
largenumberofsolutions havebeen developed,that
the broadening of the scope has reached a
point,
where the process needs to be focused into a
spearhead of prioritized solutions. The first iteration
of the e‐Navigation strategy must be reduced to a
realisticscope,toensureatimelycompletion.
Through prioritization, remaining solutions may
thusbeassignedtoaroadmapforfutureiterationsof
the
e‐Navigation strategy. The prioritization process
was originally intended to be entirely based on
Formal Safety Assessment, however the way ahead
now suggested, is to prioritize solutions prior to
completionoftheFSA.
Denmarkwouldliketostress,thatthisshouldby
nomeansbeseenasareductioninthe
ambitionlevel
for e‐Navigation. The purpose should merely be to
describeawelldefinedandmanageablestartingpoint
forthestrategicimplementationplanofe‐Navigation
however the work already conducted should not be
disregarded.
Initiallylimitingscopetothelistofsolutionsgiven
in NAV/58/WP6 rev1 Annex 2,
which was endorsed
by NAV as a preliminary list of solutions as work in
progress,mayberestrictingourselvesformincluding
‘low hanging fruits’ in relevant solutions already
discussedbytheCGbutnotcontainedinAnnex2.As
far as these solutions have been derived from the
GAP analysis
in NAV/58/WP6 rev1 Annex 1, which
was approved by NAV, and discussed by the CG,
they should still form part of the candidate set of
solutionstobeprioritized.
Denmark concurs that work as far as practicable
must be based on systems that are already in place.
Denmarkdoeshowever
finditnecessarytoallowthe
firstiterationof the e‐Navigationstrategy to address
current limitations to efficient information transfer,
and where deemed necessary suggest to amend or
34
develop new performance standards. These would
apply to future generations of navigation or
communication equipment, in order to lay a solid
foundation for future evolution of harmonized
information services. Denmark agrees that undue or
untimely introduction of new carriage requirements
should be avoided. Instead options for replacement,
allowing modernized but
backwards compatible
equipment to replace current carriage requirements,
couldbeconsidered.
First and foremost, the first iteration of the
e‐Navigation strategy should address the foundation
for efficient data exchange and operational use of
information – and demonstrate the ability to
introduceimprovedinformationservices,wherethey
providevalue.
Denmark
notesthatthetimingofthedevelopment
of the e‐Navigation implementation plan, concurrent
with the ongoing process for the review of the
GMDSS as well as the alignment at ITU of World
RadioConference agendaitemsrelatedtoadjustment
of frequency allocations for AIS, e‐Navigation and
GMDSS in 2015
and 2018, is a historic window of
opportunity, which should be kept in mind, when
aiming to address needs for maritime information
exchange.
Based on this, they encourage liaison with the
GMDSSreview process, paying attention to the SAR
user needs. The promulgation of machine readable
MSIshouldbeaddressed
asanexample,toutilizethis
window of opportunity to develop criteria for how
maritime information services in Danish Maritime
Authority general can be mapped as either GMDSS
related, to be served by prioritized and protected
(modernized) GMDSS communication links and
infrastructure, or routine / optional / information
services to be
served by optional communication
links.
Thechairmansuggeststhatfocusshouldbeonthe
followingcriteria:
1 Seamless transfer of data between various
equipmentonboard;
Denmarkconcurswiththis,butwouldliketoadd
that this must include the development of
extendibleharmonizeddatamodelsandprotocols
forthe
informationtobetransferred.
2 Seamless transfer of electronic exchange of
information/data between ship and shore and
viceversa;
Denmark concurs with the same amendments as
above, and with the inclusion of transf er of data
betweenshipsandbetweenshorestakeholders.
3 The work should be based on systems that are
already
in place (according to the already
adopted IMO’s e‐Navigation strategy (MSC
85/26/Add.1, Annex 20)) and development of
potential futuristic carriage requirements should
thereforebestrictlylimited;
Denmark agrees that unnecessary introduction of
new equipment must be avoided, but as stated
earlier, amended or new performance standards
forsomenovel
elementsmaybenecessaryinorder
toachievethegoalsthroughoptionalintroduction.
4 CG should not concentrate on determining cause
ofmarinecasualties;and
5 Listof potential e‐Navigationsolutionsshould be
limitedsolelytoachieve1and2above.
Denmark does not agree that the list of potential
solutionsshouldbelimitedtoachieve1and2above.
We should focus on a select few value adding
solutions which address transfer of operational
information, spanning the directions of
communication (onboard, ship‐ship, ship‐shore and
shore‐ship),thatdemonstratethevalueanddocument
ways to fill identified gaps
for efficient transfer of
information between users in the e‐Navigation
domain.
Denmark proposed the following solutions to be
includedintheinitialstepofthee‐Navigationprocess
(Christensen,2013):
S1Improved, harmonized and user‐friendly bridge
design
Thissolutionshouldinthefirstiterationaddress:
Extended use of
standardized and unified
symbologyforrelevantbridgeequipment;
Standard default settings, save / recall settings,
andS‐modefunctionalitiesonrelevantequipment;
AllbridgeequipmenttofollowIMOBAM(Bridge
AlertManagement)performancestandard;
Informationaccuracy/reliabilityindication(Initial
focus on presentation of rich position data
includingaccuracy/reliability);
Integratedcentralbridgedisplaysystem(INS) for
improvedaccesstoshipboardinformation;
GMDSS equipment integration‐one common
interface.
S2Meansforstandardizedandautomatedreporting
forshipboardusers(Ship‐shore)
Thissolutionshouldinthefirstiterationaddress:
Onboardequipmenttoexchangedata;
Automated
collection of internal data for
reporting;
Single‐entry of reportable information in single‐
windowsolution;
Harmonizeddataformatfortheinformationtobe
exchanged(Allnationalreportingrequirementsto
apply standardized digital reporting formats‐
FALforms);
Acommunicationinfrastructurethatfacilitatesthe
datatobetransferredfrom
shiptoshore;
A shore side communication infrastructure that
facilities sharing of the data among shore side
stakeholders.
This solution could be integrated with elements
fromS6:
AutomatedSARinformationcollection;
Automated network for communication and data
coordination / distribution among SAR
stakeholders.
S4 Integration and presentation of
available
information in graphical displays received via
communicationequipment(Shore–ship)
Thissolutionshouldinthefirstiterationaddress:
Promulgation and display of (machine readable)
MSIinnavigationaldisplay;
Communication infrastructure to transfer data
fromshoretoship;
Harmoniseddataformatfortheinformationtobe
exchanged;
35
Navigationalequipmentcapableofdisplayingthe
information.
S7 Improved reliability, resilience and integrity of
navigationinformation
This solution should in the first iteration facilitate
transition towards modernized communication and
PNTsystemsby:
Harmonised datamodel for rich positioning data
(multiplesources,accuracy,reliability);
Navigationalequipmentcapableofdisplayingrich
positiondata;
Shore monitoring of qualit
y / integrity /
effectivenessofcommunicationsystems.
S14Exchangeofvesselsintentions(ship‐ship,ship‐
shore,shore‐ship)
Thissolutionwouldrequire:
Harmoniseddatamodelforroute;
Navigational system capable of planning,
broadcastinganddisplayingtheinformation;
Shore based systems ca
pable of displaying the
information (and optionally provide graphical
orientedroutesuggestions);
(existingAIScouldbeused,i.e.noneedforother
communicationequipment).
Tosummarize,Denmarksproposetodefineafirst
iteration of the e‐Navigation strategy which
comprises:
The development of a communication
infrastructure that would facilit
ate data exchange
between relevant stakeholders both shipside and
shoreside;
Developafewspecificservices(mentionedabove)
thatwouldutilizethisinfrastructure;
Develop harmonised data models (based on IHO
S‐100)fortheinformationneededintheseservices.
3.8 ThepositionoftheMarshallIslands(dated25
January,2013)
Alan L. Blume, Deputy Commissioner of Maritime
Affairs presented the position of the Republic of
MarshallIslands
The Marshall Islands tha
nked the Nautical
Institute for their input to the request of Mr Haden
because it does help ensure this enterprise remains
focused on some of the basics. Alan Blume
particularlya
ppreciatedtheircommentsonusability,
data quality, communication transparency and
evolutionaryimplementation.
The Marshall Islands suggested the following
(Blume,2013):
S2:Means of standardized and automated
reporting;
S3:Improved reliability, resilience and integrity of
bridgeequipmentandnavigationinformation;
S4: Integration and presentation of available
informationingraphicaldisplays;
S5: Informationma
nagement;
S9: Improved communication of VTS service
portfolio.
The Marshall Islands did note that there are
several solutions under S1, e.g., S1.2 through S1.8,
that could be included in solutions S2, S3, S4 or S5.
This would leave the ergonomic design of bridges
andequipmenttosortout.
3.9 Theposi
tionoftheUnitedStates(dated25January,
2013)
Bill Cairns, Senior Technical Advisor, Commandant
(CG‐NAV) USCG informed aboutposition of the US
(Cairns,2013).
Due to the large number of possible
combinationns, tt seems that the correspondence
group could parse the discussion of various
combinationsofprioritizedpotentiale‐Navsolutions
for years to come. However, the US supports in
principle Germa
nyʹs list (S1, 2, 3, 4, and 9). It seems
that the view expressed by Germany is best in line
with IMOʹs focus and centered on ship operations,
e.g.,bridgedesign.
Improved and more user‐friendly bridge designs
seemamorevaluablefocustha
nharmonizingshore‐
basedsystems.Sinceshore‐basedsystemsdonʹtmove
fromcountrytocountry,portstatesshouldbefreeto
usewhateversystemsthatbestfittheirneeds,evenif
itʹs aʺone‐off.ʺ S8 is not about communications and
exchanges between ship and shore. In tha
t instance,
standardizationwouldbeusefulsothatshipsmoving
from one country to another would be able use the
same process to access and communicate with shore
services in each country. Rather, S8 is about the
presentation of domain awareness information and
symbology for int
ernal systems. It does not seem
necessary that the target detection presentation and
symbologyusedinonecountryshouldbethesameas
it is in others. If an Administration wants to use a
system designed to meet its own unique needs, it
shouldbefreetodothat.Furthermore,IMOneednot
beinvolvedinst
andardizingthesymbologyused on
shoreequipmentandthewayshiptrafficispresented
onshore.
The US informed that they do not support the
notionthatthereductionfrom9to5solutionsshould
be merely regrouping or re‐categorizing (with more
general headings) without any loss or deletion of
specific solutions. Their understanding of thi
s latest
effortistoreducethescopeoftheproject.
TheUSdidnothaveanyconcernwithfocusingon
seamless transfer of information. Quite the contrary,
the US supports that notion. Focusing on seamless
transferofinformationislikelytoproducesomereal
benefitstha
twillformthebasicbuildingblocksofthe
future, i.e., more extensive improvements in ship
navigation. IHOʹs version of theʺcore objectivesʺ of
e‐Navigation doesnʹt seem to be supported by the
IMO definition of e‐Navigation. Whilst the US
believes the IHO objectives are worthwhile, at thi
s
point it seems best to stick to the definition
e‐Navigation, which is focused on the exchange of
information.
3.10 ThepositionoftheIMPA(dated26January,2013)
Simon Pelletier, Vice‐President of the International
MaritimePilots’Associationpresentedthepositionof
IMPA.
36
IMPA has followed with interest the recent
exchanges between members and has the following
comments(Pelletier,2013):
1 Theygreatlyappreciatethetrueleadershipshown
by Mr Hagen in re‐focusing the CG’s work to 5
key, pragmatic, priorities. They also understand
the urgency there is to wrap‐up the overall
initiative in a timely way, and to make sure it
remains closely aligned with the initial scope the
IMOenvisagedforit
.
2 Theybelieve thatMr.Hagen’s suggestionthatthe
fiveprioritiesfocusonensuring“seamlesstransfer
ofdatabetweenvarious equipmentonboard”and
on “seamless transfer of electronic exchange of
information between ship and shore and vice‐
versa” is not only closely aligned with the initial
scope of initiative but is, in fact
, most likely to
providereal,achievable,benefits.
3 GiventheaboveandwhattheyknowoftheIMOʹs
focus and of the initiative’s raison d’être, they
thinkthatthesetofsolutionstoprioritizeis:1,2,3,4
and 9. They also think that the suggestion of
merely regrouping all or most of the existing
solutions (priorities together) under more general
headings defeats the purpose of establishing a
narrowerandbetter‐definedscopeofworkforthe
CG and, as such, they do not support thi
s
approach.
4 They think that focusing at this point on
improving the means of seamless information
transfer is not a retreat from the concept of e‐
Navigation.Rather,itisconcentratingeffortssoas
tosecureanimportantcomponentofe‐Navigation
infrastructure that could serve as the foundation
forfuture growth.e‐Navigation will continue to
develop aft
er this IMO work item is completed,
and the CG will have made a valuable
contributiontothatprocess.
3.11 ThepositionofAustralia(dated27January,2013)
Nick Lemon, Manager Nautical & Regulation,
NavigationSafety&InternationalDivisionpresented
thepositionofAustralia.
First,hetha
nkedMrHagenforhisexcellentwork
in coordinating this very complex, detailed and
demandingtask–theestablishingrecognitionofwhat
is essentially a new paradigm in the way ships ‘get
around’‐e‐Navigation. He thanked also for this
invitation to comment on the way ahead and in
particular the simplificat
ion and prioritisation of a
maximum of five main practical solutions covering
ship and shore based users. The debate that has
ensued amongst the correspondence group has been
extensive,thoughtful,consideredandperhapsoneof
the most valuable discussions the correspondence
grouphashad(Lemon,2013).
3.11.1 Somegeneralcomments
Aust
raliahasbeeninvolvedinthedevelopmentof
e‐Navigation since work on this important matter
commenced at the IMO. As previously noted,
Australia believes that at this stage of the process
identified solutions should be outcomes based, and
nottechnologyspecific.Thisisparticularlyimportant
due to the now rapid rate of change in the options
and possibilit
ies available for particular solutions;
new communications product offerings and modern
high resolution large area touch screens being some
goodexamples.Inthefutureitwillnotbepossibleor
sensible to have prescriptive performance standards
fore‐Navigationequipmentandsystems.
The human element within e‐Navigation will be
key to it
s success, and solutions need to take into
account the most effective approach for the user –
bothafloatandashore.Thesolutionsshouldfocuson
the outcome, the ‘what is required’, and not attempt
to specify any more than is necessary ‘how the
objectives should be achieved’. To do thi
s a balance
willneed to be struck sothatthe result will provide
consistency in the way all e‐Navigation human /
machineinterfaceswork.Primarybenefitsofthiswill
be to minimise the amount of any detailed
equipment/system specific training, and to enable
users,working within systems, to opt
imally perform
theirrolesandacquittheirresponsibilities.
Whilstthere havebeen many comments made by
othersthatAustraliacanfullysupport,Denmarkhas
providedsome helpful advice, which is paraphrased
here:
the broadening of the scope has reached a point
where the process needs to be focused int
o a
spearheadofprioritizedsolutions;
the first iteration of the e‐Navigation strategy
shouldberealistictoensureatimelycompletion.
prioritizationoftheremainingsolutionstoprovide
aroadmapforfuturework;
thiscurrentprioritisationexciseshoulddescribea
well‐definedandma
nageablestartingpoint;
limitingthe scope to the list of solutions given in
NAV/58/WP6rev1 Annex 2, which was endorsed
byNAVasa preliminarylistofsolutionsaswork
in progress, may be restricting ourselves form
including‘lowhangingfruits’inrelevantsolutions
alreadydiscussedbytheCGbut notcontainedin
Annex 2. As far as these solutions have been
derived from the GAP analysis in NAV/
58/WP6
rev1Annex 1, which was approved by NAV, and
discussedbytheCG,theyshouldstillformpartof
thecandidatesetofsolutionstobeprioritized;
there remains an import
ant role for the Formal
Safety Assessment to process in refining the
prioritisationofsolutions.
3.11.2 Somemoredetailedcomments
Whilst Australia is not particularly wedded to a
particularlistoffivehighlevelsolutions,orgroupsof
solutions,they do have some low level comments to
offeronthreecategoriesofsolutions:
1. Informationexchange.Anya
pproachtoe‐Navigation
– both ship and shore side – requires effective,
efficient and seamless information exchange. This
information can be exchanged in many ways:
automated, digital communications to address
specific information and reporting requirements;
voice communications over different carrier types;
digitaldatatransmissionsoverdifferentcarriertypes.
The approach taken for information exchange
should,fromtheuserperspective,beseamless–with
an a
pproach taken that does not require the user to
identifytheappropriatecarriermethodology(eg.HF,
37
VHF, satellite). Noting the increasing capability for
digital data transfer over VHF (VHF data exchange)
alongwith thecurrent capabilities,the mostefficient
means of communication for information exchange
shouldbeautomaticallyidentified.
At a slightly more detailed level, while many
technologiesfortheinformationexchangeusingradio
frequencieswillnotincuracostforthetransmission,
there are inst
ances where a cost could be incurred
(suchassatellitecommunicationsfor non‐emergency
transmissions). In the case where a cost could be
incurred,this shouldbehighlighted totheuser with
anoptiontocontinueordelaythetransmissionuntil
such ti
me as another transfer carrier option is
available.
With many reporting requirements following set
formats, aspects of information exchange can be
automated–withtheabilityto‘pre‐populate’reports
basedonexistinginformation.
The approach taken for information exchange
must be focused on practical outcomes, and not
specifictechnology.
2. Integrity, resilience and reliability
. In a data rich
environment there is a need to ensure the integrity
and reliability of the information exchanged. This is
linkednotonlytothequalityassuranceofequipment
and software in use, ensuring the most up‐to‐date
versions are implemented; but also data qualit
y,
including for positioning, navigation and timing
information.
Software and hardware must be reflective of the
requirementsoftheuser,withascalableapproachto
ensure information required is available, without
overloadingsystemsoruserswithinformationthatis
notrequired.Thelatestversionofthesoftwareshould
be automatically updated through the informat
ion
exchange capabilities, with consistent notification of
theversion in use. Where the latestversionis not in
use, indication of this must be provided so that the
user can take any limitations of data integrity and
reliability into account. Within a technical
environment that is constantly changing, technical
and presentation standards must be updated
regularly, to ensure consistency and effectiveness of
data tra
nsfer and presentation across multiple
platforms.
The human element in reviewing and
understandingthedataiscritical.Whilesomeaspects
could be automated, the watchkeepers (afloat and
ashore)willbetheoneswhowillneedtointerpretthe
informat
ion. Within the concept of integrity and
reliability are inherent training requirements.
Training can be integrated into system design, with
‘help’ files, on‐line tutorials supplementing more
formaltraining.
3. Usability, ergonomics (human / system interfaces).
Noting the work already done on ergonomics,
including the current IMO Integrated Navigation
System standard, the pra
ctical solution needs to
ensure consistent implementation of standards and
symbology.
The consistency of the implementation of
standards related to ergonomics and visualisation /
symbology must address both ship and shore users.
Withtheincreasinglinkingofshipandshore,thereis
aneed to considertheuse of similar symbologysets
foruseinbothenvironments.
In addition to a kind of standardised, or
harmonisedpresentationofinformat
ionthereshould
be opportunities identified to ensure a user
requirementsfocusedpresentation.
4 CONCLUSIONS
AsyoucanseetheworkoftheIMOcorrespondence
groups are sometimes very int
ense. For example, in
the paper was shown a little more than two weeks
(from 10 to 27 January, 2013) action works of the
Correspondence Group on e‐Navigation under
chairmanshipofMrJohnErikHagen.
10 January 2013 Chairman of the IMO
Correspondence Group on e‐Navigation John Erik
Hageninvit
edthe members oftheGroup to provide
inputforfinalizingamaximumoffivemainpractical
solutions.Twoweekslaterthecommonpositionwas
almost formed. It was exactly before IMO COMSAR
session.
The internal debate that has ensued amongst the
correspondencegrouphasbeenextensive,thoughtful,
considered and perha
ps one of the most valuable
discussionsthecorrespondencegrouphashad.
The majority of the CG has prioritized the
followingmainpotentialsolutions:
S1:Improved, harmonized and user‐friendly bridge
design;
S2:Means for standardized and automated
reporting
S3:Improved reliability, resilience and integrity of
bridgeequipmentandnavigationinformat
ion;
S4:Integration and presentation of available
information in graphical displays received via
communicationequipment;
S9:Improved Communication of VTS Service
Portfolio.
By the way it appeared a suggestion for
consideration concerning the next session of IMO
STW. It would be helpful if an e‐Navigation
presentation could be provided to STW on the first
day of the session. Such a presentation will help
update those tha
t attend STW about the status of
e‐Navigation and also share the vision of what
e‐Navigationshoulddeliver.ThiswouldassistSTWʹs
deliberations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank his colleagues, the
members of the IMO CG on e‐Nav for their
contribution, suggestions and assistance in
p
reparationofthispaper,especiallyJohnErikHagen,
Jon Leon Ervik, Florian Motz, Gilles Bessero, David
Patraiko,ThomasSteenChristensen,AlanBlume,Bill
Cairns, Dave Enabnit, Simon Pelletier and Nick
Lemon, as well as Norway, Germa
ny, Denmark,
Australia, the US, the Marshall Islands and the
38
NauticalInstitute,theIHOandtheIMPA.Itwasjoint
effortfromtheCG.
REFERENCES
Amato F., Fiorini M., Gallone S., Golino G.: e‐Navigation
and Future Trend in Navigation. TransNav, the
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety
ofSeaTransportation,Vol.5,No.1,pp.11‐14,2011.
Bessero, G.: Finalizing main practical e‐Navigation
solutions. Comments submitted by the International
Hydrographic Organization in e‐mai
l addressed to all
members of the IMO CG on e‐Nav, dated 22 January
2013.
Blume, A.L.: Finalizing main practical e‐Navigation
solutions.CommentssubmittedbytheMarshallIslands
in e‐mail addressed to all members of the IMO CG on
e‐Nav,dated25January2013.
Cairns, B.:F
inalizing main practical e ‐Navigation
solutions.Commentssubmitted by the UnitedStates in
e‐mail addressed to all members of the IMO CG on
e‐Nav,dated25January2013.
Christensen, T.S.: Finalizing main practical e‐Navigation
solutions. Comments submitted by Denmark in e‐mail
addressed to all members of the IMO CG on e‐Nav,
dated25January2013.
Ervik
,J.L.:Finalizingmainpracticale‐Navigationsolutions.
CommentssubmittedbyNorwayine‐mailaddressedto
allmembersoftheIMOCGone ‐Nav, dated18January
2013.
Hagen, J.E.: Finalizing main practical e‐Navigation
solutions. E‐mail letter of the Coordinator of the IMO
CG on e‐Nav. to all members of the group, dated 10
January2013.
Lem
on, N.:Finalizing main practical e‐Navigation
solutions. Comments submitted by Australia in e‐mail
addressed to all members of the IMO CG on e‐Nav,
dated27January2013.
Motz, F.
: Finalizing main practical e‐Navigation solutions.
Comments submitted by Germany in e‐mail addressed
to all members of the IMO CG on e‐Nav, dated 22
January2013.
MSC 81/23/10. Work Programme. Development of an
e‐Navigation strategy Submitted by Japan, Marshall
Islands, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, the
UnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStates.MaritimeSafety
Commi
ttee, International Maritime Organization,
London,19December2005.
MSC85/26/Add.1,Annex20.ReportofTheMaritimeSafety
Committeeon Its Eighty‐Fifth Session. StrategyforThe
Development and Implementation of e‐Navigation.
Inter‐national Maritime Organization, London, 6
January2009.
NAV 55/INF.8. Development of An e‐Navig
ation Strategy
Implementation Plan Mariner needs for e‐Navigation,
Supporting material, submitted by the International
Federation of Shipmasters. Associations (IFSMA). Sub‐
Committee on Safety of Navigation. International
MaritimeOrganization,London,19May2009.
NAV58/WP6rev.1Annex2.ReportoftheWorkingGroup
on e‐Navigation. Preliminary List of Potential
e‐Navig
ation Solutions. International Maritime
Organization,London,9July2012.
NAV 58/14. Report of the Maritime Safety Committee.
Sub‐Committee on Safety of Navigation. International
MaritimeOrganization,London,31July2012.
Patraiko, D.: Finalizing main practical e‐Navigation
solutions.CommentssubmittedbytheNauticalInstitute
in e‐mail addressed to all members of the IMO CG on
e‐Nav,dated24January2013.
Patraik
o D., Wake P., Weintrit A.: e‐Navigation and the
HumanElement.TransNav,theInternationalJournalon
Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation,
Vol.4,No.1,pp.11‐16,2010.
Pelletier, S.: Finalizing main practical e‐Navig
ation
solutions. Comments submitted by the IMPA in e‐mail
addressed to all members of the IMO CG on e‐Nav,
dated26January2013.
