DIGITAL SHIP'S VIEW

There is increasing concern that AIS systems made by different manufacturers may not be interoperable. 

If this proves to be case, there can be no exchange of data between ships, and between ships and shore using the technology.

Where complex communications interfaces are involved it is quite normal for a system operator to exercise direct control over elements of the type approval. 

This is the case, for example, with the INMARSAT and Cospas-Sarsat equipment fitted to ships. 

Amongst other things, centralised control of type testing ensures harmonised interpretation of the interface protocols, thus guaranteeing interoperability irrespective of the equipment's manufacturing source.

In an ideal world, as it becomes more complex, and more integrated, similar regimes would apply to all communications equipment installed on ships. We do not live in such a world.

Other than the INMARSAT and COSPAS-SARSAT equipment, ultimate responsibility for the type approval of communications equipment required by SOLAS rests solely with the flag state. This includes, amongst others, AIS.

Furthermore, with agreements in place on the mutual recognition of certificates, notably, but not exclusively between the so-called flags of convenience, once an item of ships' communications equipment has been type approved by a flag state, any flag state, it will normally be accepted on most ships without further recourse.

This would not necessarily matter were the AIS standard comprehensive enough to ensure no ambiguity in the interpretation of interface protocols between manufacturers; or there are only a select group of manufacturers involved in supply. 

Nor would it matter if the equipment concerned provided significant benefit to the user; the manufacturer of any GSM phone not interoperable with the wider world would soon go bust!

However, many experts in the field are saying that this is not the case. When compared to the detail provided in the specifications for similar communications technologies, the standard for AIS still appears to be insufficiently developed to ensure harmonised interpretation. 

Moreover, unless and until true value-added services are provided to ships using the technology, shipping companies have no incentive to purchase AIS other than because the law requires it.

As a consequence, the purchase decision for AIS is likely to come down to
two factors: is it type approved by someone, anyone; and, is it the cheapest on the market?

For the less than scrupulous manufacturer, there is a phenomenal incentive here. If they can secure a type approval certificate from a flag state authority who, shall we say, has a reputation for being less than thorough in the (expensive) testing required, this guarantees being able to offer a lower price for the product on the market. 

Certainly lower than AIS equipment supplied by manufacturers who have gone to the expense of thorough type testing. 

And, of course, he who has the cheapest product will have no difficulty in securing the bulk of sales from the shipping industry.

So, at the end of the day, will all AIS equipment fitted to ships work, i.e., be interoperable?  

With no one exercising overall quality control, it would be rather more down to luck than judgement if it does.