MAIN HEAD US to mandate electronic charts DECK HEAD New regulations will come into force in the US, saying that nearly all vessels in US waters must have electronic chart systems by around 2007. By Dr Andy Norris IMAGE – generic electronic charts pic Caption – Nearly all vessels, including tugs and passenger boats, will need electronic chart systems in US waters by around 2007 BODY The new US Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act (dated 9 August 2004) among other issues requires the compulsory fit of electronic chart systems to a broad class of vessels operating in US waters. The law requires that vessels are equipped with and operate electronic charts while on the navigable waters of the United States. This law is applicable to foreign (non US) flagged vessels as well as US vessels. It includes self-propelled commercial vessels of at least 65 feet overall length; vessels carrying more than a number of passengers for hire, determined by the Secretary (of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating); towing vessels of more than 26 feet in overall length and 600 horsepower; other vessels for which the Secretary decides that electronic charts are necessary for the safe navigation of the vessel. US Coast Guard has not been instrumental in promoting this particular aspect of the Act but they now have to implement it. One intriguing aspect about this is that the regulations have to be prescribed (effectively by the Coast Guard) by 1 January 2007 but this may not imply that they have to come into force by then. The regulations will include requirements for the operation and maintenance of electronic charts. SUBHEAD Will the world follow? This new law is an interesting development and, to a certain extent, echoes the situation that occurred on ARPA in the 1980s. Similar action by the US effectively introduced ARPA into global use, preceding and prompting IMO carriage requirements. If handled correctly, the 2004 Act could similarly accelerate the fitment and use of ECDIS around the world and perhaps lead to an ECDIS compulsory carriage requirement from IMO. Otherwise it may further blur the situation concerning ECDIS and ECS (displaying government or privately produced electronic charts). Since the new law only refers to electronic charts and not ECDIS, the detail included in the regulations will be critical to its eventual impact. For the benefit of both the safety of navigation in the US and the rest of the world I would not be alone in urging that at least those vessels typically subject to IMO SOLAS requirements should be fitted with ECDIS (displaying government charts). These should use ENCs, if published, or other suitable electronic chart formats in those specific areas where ENCs are not available. Non-SOLAS vessels could use suitable ECS equipment and data for equipment size and cost reasons, although ‘mini-ENC’ display systems may be preferable. This action would immediately accelerate the fitment of ECDIS to SOLAS vessels around the world, creating the safety improvements that have been promised for many years. It would also allow paperless operation in ENC areas by those vessels provided suitable back-up arrangements were made available, significantly reducing operating costs. SUBHEAD ECS only? Complications, including possible safety problems, will occur if the regulations allow an ‘ECS only’ solution to be fitted to SOLAS vessels, particularly those engaged on international voyages. This route may be taken if US ENC coverage is not deemed sufficient or there is a lobby fearing the expense of ECDIS, even though US ENC data is zero priced. In this case, despite having an electronic chart fitted, the navigation of the vessel will still have to rely formally on paper chart navigation because of rules embodied within the SOLAS Convention. However, the requirement also to carry and use electronic charts embodied in the new US Act would surely blur the legal situation as to which chart is the prime navigational source. This could be a particular problem if there were any discrepancies between paper and ECS data. Perhaps this would also imply that the US would have to approve nationally the use of certain ECS data in its own waters? The rules would differ outside the US, leading to possible mariner confusion as to what was legally acceptable either side of the divide between US and international waters. In principle this is a great opportunity for the US to lead in creating safety benefits from the widespread use of ECDIS. If the implementation goes the ECS route then even greater confusion and problems in the use of electronic charts will arise. BODY AIS conference The recent AIS 2004 Conference in Seattle showed the particular emphasis that the US has put on the introduction of AIS into US waters. AIS has been entirely linked to their Homeland Security program and the use for both Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) and for enhancing the situational awareness of navigating vessels has perhaps initially taken a second seat. This does not mean that these are not being properly addressed but the emphasis on security puts AIS implementation as only one item in the Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) programme, which is in itself just one aspect of the vast Homeland Security initiative. The US Coast Guard has an enormous remit to implement and then coordinate MDA. This includes initially putting in systems to collect data and then continuously analysing the data, making appropriate operational decisions, while disseminating relevant information to maritime users. The difficulties of AIS frequency allocation in the US have given the Coast Guard an additional problem. In 1998 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned the VHF public correspondence band, which included the ITU AIS1 channel (87B). Also AIS2 (88B) was being used by other US Federal Agencies. The latter has been resolved by the Coast Guard but the former has led to court action involving them and Maritel Inc, the ‘owners’ of Channel 87B. In the meantime, as announced by the FCC in June 2002, AIS is currently using both the ITU AIS channels, despite an earlier expectation that Channels 87A and 87B were to be used. This has perhaps been missed by some non-US observers. At the Seattle conference it was apparent that few US mariners were experiencing the use of AIS in improving situational awareness. A topic of discussion regarding AIS use was whether best situational awareness was obtained by viewing AIS targets on radar or ECDIS screens, with everybody agreeing that AIS displayed on MKDs (minimum keyboard and display, standard 3 line display on AIS unit) was not particularly useful in helping situational awareness. Jorge Arroyo, AIS Regulatory Project Officer at the Coast Guard, made it quite clear that there is no one AIS display that meets the needs of all mariners, each situation, or the specific preferences of mariners. A number of mariners already had the clear view that ECDIS or ECS was their choice of prime display for AIS. While I would agree that AIS displayed on electronic charts can be very useful, particularly in restricted waters, I was rather concerned to hear that one particular reason for choosing this option is that the display is ‘less cluttered than radar’. Surely the main reason why AIS displayed on an electronic chart is less cluttered is that non-AIS targets are not displayed, even though they could be important for situational awareness and critical for collision avoidance. Let’s not de-clutter screens by recklessly throwing away targets otherwise it will be like a ‘myopic’ driving a car without glasses in an attempt to reduce the traffic on the road!