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 onʺDevelopment 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 existingand 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 Ergonomicallyimprovedandharmonized
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
S1.6.1Graphicalornumericalpresentationoflevelsof
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,includingbothʺstaticʺdocumentation
andd
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
S4.1.1Implementa Common Maritime Data Structure
andincludeparametersforpriority,source,and
ownershi
p
ofinformation
S4.1.2Standardized interfaces for data exchange
should be developed to support transfer of in‐
formation from communication equipment to
navi
g
ationals
y
stems
(
INS
)
S4.1.3Provide mapping of specific services (infor‐
mation available) to specific regions (e.g. mari‐
time service portfolios) with status and access
re
q
uirements
S4.1.4Provision 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
S4.1.5Routeing 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
S4.1.6Providequalityassuranceprocesstoensurethat
all data is reliable and is based on a consistent
common reference system (CCRS) or converted
tosuchbeforeinte
g
rationanddis
p
la
y

S4.1.7Implement 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
S4.1.8Develop a holistic presentation library as re‐
quired to support accurate presentation across
dis
p
la
y
s
S4.1.9ProvidealertfunctionalityofINSconceptstoin‐
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:Integrationand presentationof 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:Integrationand presentationof 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:Integrationand presentationof
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:Integrationand presentationof 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 asʺwork in progressʺ
(ref.NAV58/14,paragraph6.39).Fiveheadings(S1
toS5)refertoʺShipboardusersʺ;S6referstoʺSAR
usersʺ;S7toS9refertoʺShore‐basedusersʺ.
2 Theʺpreliminary
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 thatʺthe
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
potentialfuturisticcarriagerequirements
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
usersʹrequirementsfirst.
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’willbeabletobedemonstrated