Transas on-line press conference April 24-25 Second-generation ECDIS:meeting the new market requirements * Day 1 o Electronic charts- Karl Jeffery [Digital =hip][ 24 Apr 2003 / 18:11:59 ] Apart from getting rid of =he hassle of managing paper charts, how can electronic navigation improve the =fficiency of navigation [as defined as making it less expensive to move a ship =rom A to B]? * Re: Electronic charts- Alexander Sosonkin[ 25 Apr 2003 / 14:16:00 = In our navigational =ystem we have functionality which allows to navigator to choose the most =fficient way from A to B based on tidal current, surface current and actual =eather forecast information. All mentioned hydrometeorological parameters =ould be displayed on electronic charts as an additional layer. After = creating the route navigator could calculate the schedule based on =hat created route taking into account: - tidal currents - =urface current - weather forecast for 5 days ahead received from UK metrological office. And what is more, with special =unction "Play Ahead" navigator could run the ship on the created route in the =uture time to look where the speed losses would be significant and edit =he route to avoid such losses. There is also functionality which =llows to compare alternative routes from A to B. o Electronic chart- Karl Jeffery [Digital =hip][ 24 Apr 2003 / 17:48:59 ] Shipping companies don"t =ant to deal with 20 different suppliers for their navigation. When will one =upplier put weather information, radar information, tidal information, =nformation about other vessels, information about vessel traffic systems, safety =nformation and the ship"s route on a single large display superimposed onto an automatically updated electronic chart? * Re: Electronic chart- Alexander Sosonkin[ 25 Apr 2003 / 13:06:59 = That is the main aim of =ur company to integrate as mush as possible navigational information on one screen. At present moment we can offer for our customers ECDIS =ystem which integrate the following information on one screen: - =nformation about own ship's position regarding to the monitoring route - =adar information overlaid on the electronic chart - tidal =nformation, tidal current information, surface current information - weather =nformation from UKMO which could be displayed in dynamic for 5 days ahead on =he real navigational charts. - NAVTEX information which is =utomatically plotted on navigational charts. - Information about other =essels by using UAIS information. Our system performs full AIS MKD functionality. - On St.Lauwrence river AIS base stations =rovide the ships with AIS with the wide range of information such as: lock =chedule, weather information, traffic information and so on. Our ECDIS =llows to display this information right on the electronic chart in right place. - Information about vessel traffic system that could be =et through AIS base station and displayed on the =hart. o The automatic ship- Bill Thomson [Ship =amp; Boat International][ 24 Apr 2003 / 16:08:00 = How close do you think we =re, in technical terms, to a navigation and conning system that has a =ingle display showing charts, radar, machinery and cargo information, that =ill drive a ship along a pre-planned route at a set speed, making due =llowance for weather, tides and other vessels, so that all the helmsman has =o do is keep a visual lookout and confirm any actions? And do you think that =ither the regulators will allow it or the ship operators will want it? =/DIV> * Re: The automatic ship- Andrey =orobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 18:19:00 ] First of all about the =isplay. We are close and actually we have implemented already a concept of a =ecision support system showing all necessary information for the task at =he moment. The main element of it is HMI display with a kind of =nformation of "situation awareness". It preprocess all available data =ike chart, ship position, course, speed, other ships positions, radar image =tc. into a single display together with tools to trial possible actions =.g. course or speed maneuvers. System will do all routine and pre-determined operations like plotting position on the chart and will save a lot =f time for navigator just to assess the situation and take the =ecision. I do not think that we are close to situation when we can task the =ystem to navigate the ship from A to B and live only monitoring and =mergency functions to navigator. It is technically difficult to ensure that =LL information available to navigator now as human being can be =ffectively detected by sensors and properly analyzed by any kind of system. =ry to imagine ice field of floating container right on a way of the ship =96 it is quite unlikely that radar always detects them - I do not also =hink that such object will be having a transponder to show "something is here" My opinion is that system design shall go to a =irection of maximum possible automation of routine and monitoring operations =.e. preparation of information for decision leaving final decision on navigator. Try to create the system which would go under "red =raffic light"! Sometimes it can be the only way out from dangerous =ituation and this can be assessed only by human. o Beyond raster- Bill Thomson [Ship & Boat International][ 24 Apr 2003 / 16:02:59 = The vast majority of the =wners and users I come across seem to feel that ARCS gives the basic =unctionality that they need. This even seems to apply to non-Solas vessels which =n theory are free to fit and use whatever system they wish. We all =now that ARCS lacks a lot of the possibilities of Ecdis and full-function ECS = how do you feel the industry needs to educate its customers about the =xtra benefits of vector systems? Or do you agree that raster is, 90% of =he time, good enough? * Re: Beyond raster- Andrey =orobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 17:28:00 ] Official Raster =harts are good because they are available, unlike official ENCs. At the moment availability of worldwide electronic chart data contributes a lot =o promotion of real time navigation system used for decision =upport. It helps to prove the concept of navigational system which provide =UCH more functionality than paper chart and contribute safety a lot. At =irst users have an opportunity to appreciate and trust this concept of =ecision support system showing in real time own ship position and traffic situation over some electronic chart background. Even if people =tart with raster charts they will have an opportunity to use vector charts =ne day and appreciate benefits of those. But the fact is that people who =tarted their experience with vector charts found raster chart limitations =oo critical. I think the only way to educate the customers is to =rovide more services based on vector charts with more benefits and let people =ompare. No questions that vector data and in particular ENC can provide =ore advanced functionality like automatic anti grounding control, =electable information layers etc. * Re: Beyond raster- Bill =homson[ 24 Apr 2003 / 18:10:00 ] Thanks for the =esponse. I believe that it is the limited availability of vector chart data = or at least that is the way the market seems to see things - that is =he cause for the support for raster. People know that ARCS and similar =harts are available, readily obtainable, and systems are in place for =eeping them up to date. With these benefits I think mariners are prepared to = sacrifice the additional functions of official vector =harts. As far as non-Solas vessels go, I think a lot of people are, like =e, put off by the poor quality of some of the unofficial vector charts. = remember some of the early commercial efforts which were badly =igitised from paper charts, keeping all of the paper chart scaling and =atum inconsistencies and introducing numerous errors and omissions in =he process. I"m willing to believe things are much better now - is =hat so? * Re: Beyond raster- Andrey =orobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 18:34:59 ] Things really much =etter now...There are several reliable commercial chart database =uppliers which have very high quality standards of chart production. I =hould say that most of our SOLAS customers prefer to have commercial = non-official Transas charts in their ECDIS systems and this is = good indication that thing has changed. =/DIV> o Electronic charts-- Karl Jeffery [Digital =hip][ 24 Apr 2003 / 15:20:00 ] If official ENC charts are =ot available, what should be the next best option? Is it UKHO raster, non-official (eg Transas) vector charts, or printing out raster =harts onto paper in a large printer on the ship"s bridge? * Re: Electronic charts-- Andrey =orobiev[ 25 Apr 2003 / 14:00:59 ] If someone wants to =aintain legal ECDIS status as RCDS then the best choice would be ARCS. If =uch status is not the issue then the best choice would be to load =ommercial vector charts database and operate ECDIS in ECS mode. Transas =upply vector charts in TX97 vector format with most of ECDIS deliveries. o Conservative industry- Scott Thompson [The Maritime Supplier][ 24 Apr 2003 / 15:01:00 = The ECDIS concept =ndoubtedly has the potential to revolutionise navigation, but it has so far failed to =ive up to expectations. Is this because the majority of seafarers are =eluctant to navigate on a computer? And what evidence cam you provide to suggest =hat attitudes are now changing? * Re: Conservative industry- Andrey Vorobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 17:02:00 = I do not think that =avigating on a computer is the real problem. This is a reality already that most =f modern navigation equipment has a sort of computer inside. =lthough, I should say here that by "computer" I mean navigation device =hich uses a computer to perform this particular task - not a fancy desktop =ith access to internet and games...and by the way - chart plotter =oftware. As to prove to the fact that situation started to change - this is the =umber of systems supplied. We can see the positive dynamic of figures of =ystems installed and in use, although ECDIS is NOT a mandatory equipment. = Shipping is very conservative but there is a good number of modern = thinking ship owners and ship operators who can see real benefits =nd invest in this technology today. o ECDIS: a luxury or a necessity- Nigel Kitchen =Lloyd s Ship Manager][ 24 Apr 2003 / 14:45:00 = Some owners remain =eluctant to commit to deploying ecdis on board their fleets, an unwillingness that is =olstered by seemingly consistent changes and about-turns in international =tandards. It is hardly surprising that, while ecdis is considered a luxury =ather than a necessity, many shipping companies have preferred to sit back and =atch how the concept evolves before making a purchasing decision. Despite = predictions that the compulsory introduction of AIS last July would =ead to an upsurge of interest in ecdis, owners have foun that the raster =nd vector chart and radar have proved sufficient for navigational purposes so =ar. Do you believe this situation will change in the near future and what =an you do to effect this change? * Re: ECDIS: a luxury or a necessity- =ndrey Vorobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 18:45:00 = I think the situation =tart to change already. Although ECDIS is not the mandatory equipment many =eople start to experience benefits of it. It is recognized that ECDIS is =uch more than just a paper chart replacement but quite efficient =ecision support system which contributes to safety of navigation. As to =rove to the fact that situation started to change - this is the number =f systems supplied. We can see the positive dynamic of figures of systems =nstalled and in use. Introduction of AIS will just speed up the process - =learly AIS can effectively be used when integrated to other navigation =quipment with graphical situation display such as ECDIS or radar. This was =lear indication from IBS/INS conference in London last November. Shipping is very conservative but there is a good =umber of modern thinking ship owners and ship operators who can see real = benefits and invest in this technology today. o Sourcing electronic charts- Scott Thompson [The =aritime Supplier][ 24 Apr 2003 / 14:38:00 = It is difficult to source =lectronic charts for the whole world from a single supplier. Do you see this =s a significant problem that needs to be overcome if electronic =avigation is ever to be truly accepted by the global shipping industry? * Re: Sourcing electronic charts- Andrey Vorobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 16:44:00 = If we consider a sort of =fficial charts then I can name such supplier. This is UKHO with ARCS =hart. There are a number of arguments against and in favor of raster charts =ut we have to admit that UKHO managed to create simple, clear to =nderstand and use, timely system for distribution and updating of worldwide =hart collection. At the same time situation with ENC is not so =rilliant due to data availability and lack of world wide accepted standard for =ata distribution. Some Hydrographic offices decided to give data to =ENCs and apply encryption scheme, others distribute plain S57 (ENC) data or =llow SENC distribution. That makes both design of system and use on =oard quite complicated. For sure, availability of worldwide data and simple =eliable service to deliver and update ENCs shall be considered. The goal =s to establish ENC delivery service in a way it works now for mobile =hone - you just turn on it in the new country and it works! =/DIV> o Benefits of electronic charts- Karl Jeffery =Digital Ship][ 24 Apr 2003 / 14:28:00 ] What actually are the =enefits of electronic charts? Do you have any data about fuel savings =eafarers have made through finding out a better route, or any figures =emonstrating that navigating using electronic charts is safer than navigating using =aper charts? A lot of people don"t believe that this is the =ase * Re: Benefits of electronic charts- Andrey = Vorobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 16:27:00 = I think here you mean =CDIS or other navigational systems using electronic charts rather than =ust electronic charts. The fact that navigation with ECDIS is safer =han without it can be proven by statistics. We do have figures related =o our customers but I would better make reference to an independent =ource. The results of a Risk Assessment exercise undertaken by P&O =ruises showed that a vessel navigating in the traditional manner, using paper =harts, may be prone to stranding due to a navigational failure once every =52 years. This was in comparison with ECDIS/RCDS capable displays, =here the equivalent figure was once every 29,770 years. Thus, the risk of =tranding for ships equipped with ECDIS is over 30 times less than for those = without. On to p of this safety related cost savings, we have to =ook at day to day running cost benefits. It would not be correct to say =hat all ECDIS systems designed in the world make considerable contribution =o ship's running cost savings. Mostly competition between ECDIS or = Integrated system manufacturers goes in the area of functions =ther than those demanded by minimum performance requirements. Such =dditional functions may include tools for optimizing running costs. Transas =ays particular attention to such functions development. For instance, integrated automatic processing of NAVTEX messages saves hours of =ork for a navigational officer. Integrated weather module assists weather =outing planning. Various databases integrated into our system support =ptimal voyage planning. As example we can refer to experience of our =iggest customer A.P. Möller. According to an A.P. Möller internal =eport, the fuel consumed on MS Chastine Maersk, which was fitted with a =ransas ECDIS system for a sea trial two years ago before contract, was =onsiderably less than the average between other Maersk ships considered for =his analysis. As stated by the ship's master, a crucial reason for =his was the positive effect of using Route optimization functions provided =y the Transas system. Moreover, A.P. Möller's experts stressed in =heir feedback report the natural and user-friendly presentation of sea current information, which was another major reason for large fuel savings. o Integrated bridge - Hugh O Mahony [Lloyd s =ist][ 24 Apr 2003 / 14:23:59 ] What are your latest =evelopments in adding functionality to your integrated bridge designs? Aboard which =essels has this technology been included and what benefits does it yield =or shipowners and seafarers? * Re: Integrated bridge - Alexander Sosonkin[ 25 Apr 2003 / 13:22:59 = At present time we are =eveloping next big functionalities: - ECS / ECDIS with full =unctionality of AIS (MKD)Minimum keyboard display. That functionality has been =lready developed and now under the process of Type approval. The ship =wners definitely get the benefit of it, because they have not to buy =xtra device MKD for their AIS it is simply included in ECS system. - =rack Control System as a part of ECDIS. This functionality will allow =or the ship owner to reduce the number of the crew. - Ground Avoiding System Our aim is to upgrade all our already installed =ystems of old generation on new ones which would include above said functionality. All new building ships of course will be =upplied with the new generation systems including this =unctionality. o Electronic charts- John Barnes[ 24 Apr 2003 / 12:56:59 ] Everyone says that it is =he production of electronic charts that is slowing down the acceptance of ECDIS. =o you have any thoughts on how this might be speeded up with the =ydrographic offices? * Re: Electronic charts- Andrey =orobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 13:30:00 ] Many HOs works hard now =o produce ENC coverage. This is a huge job and it mostly depends on capacity =f the particular HO to produce or to check and validate ENC if =roduction is subcontracted to 3rd party. Of course this situation affects =cceptance of ECDIS but does not stop shipping industry from investing into =CDIS concept now. There are many dual-fuel systems which can operate =ther chart formats like ARCS and in most of cases they maintain a =ertain legal status. I should say that on top on ENC availability - there are =any other issues to consider. Such as considerable reduction of =avigational accident risk even when operating just on ARCS charts. o Electronc chart display system - Karl =effery[ 24 Apr 2003 / 12:36:59 ] People like paper charts =ecause they can spread them out on a large table and look at them in detail. Why =on"t you design an electronc chart display system in the same way. People =on"t look at a road map and drive a car at the same time - why should =eafarers be any different? The chart should be on a large screen or table top =isplay which they can look at and go over in detail when they don"t have to =ook out of the front window. * Re: Electronc chart display system - =ndrey Vorobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 13:41:00 = Large screens would make =quipment quite expensive. In some cases space on the bridge is also =ritical. Unlike the car you can not just stop the ship and start getting =amiliar with the chart until the situation becomes clear where to go. It =ust be something right under hand which tells the navigator is his ship =afe now and will it be safe in 3 or 5 minutes with regards to planned =ourse, speed and traffic situation. Large screen would not help mach and =ot so critical to solve this task. That is what we would do if we =onsider electronic chart JUST as electronic copy of the paper chart. We =onsider electronic chart as part of complex navigational system used for =ecision support. o Electronic charts - Karl Jeffery[ 24 Apr 2003 / 12:24:00 ] Electronic charts are =mmensely complex and this is putting people off using them. What can Transas do to =implify the process of purchasing and using electronic charts, and if =ransas can"t do anything then who will? * Re: Electronic charts - Andrey =orobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 13:21:00 ] My first comment is that =e should always consider electronic charts as part of navigational system. =t is quite a simplification to consider electronic charts just as =lectronic image or copy of the paper charts - they are much =ore... Secondly, on complexity of the display. Yes I must agree that IHO Colours and =ysmols working group came up with presentation rules of ENC which were =ot always well accepted by mariners. I used to be expert in this working =roup and share responsibility for this. I see the way for improvement in considering the following: - that is too much on the =creen; - too many classes of objects; - the concept of reproduction paper =hart symbology was wrong; - colours need to be changed; In third. = Complexity of distribution. I think it was a danger to whole ECDIS = concept. However, recently some positive steps have been done to =mprove the situation. IHO agreed to SENC distribution concept, Primar and =C-ENC start to provide the service. The goal is to establish ENC =elivery service in a way it works now for mobile phone - you just turn on =t in the new country and it works! o Welcome to the Transas press conference!- =ndrey Vorobiev[ 24 Apr 2003 / 12:08:59 = Dear =riends, Welcome to our Press Conference, where we will be pleased to discuss the future =evelopment of ECDIS and integrated navigation solutions. We will try to give =he most clear and detailed answers to all your questions. We sincerely hope =hat our information exchange will be of interest and informative for all of =s, and your readers! Andrey * * Day 2 o SENC distribution- Karl Jeffery [Digital Ship][ 25 Apr 2003 / 16:12:59 ] What is Transas" views =bout SENC distribution? * Re: SENC distribution- Alexander Sosonkin[ 25 Apr 2003 / 18:53:00 = We are going participate =n that kind of business. Our goal is to learn achievements of such famous =ompanies as IC-ENC and PRIMAR, extract their best ideas and to come on the =arket with our own propositions, which could improve current =ituation. We would like to arrange our own distribution network of SENC's not =nly by CD's, but via satellite communication. It concerns as well =pdates for the charts. o AIS- Hugh O Mahony [Lloyd s List][ 25 Apr 2003 / 15:56:59 ] There has been a surge in =he number of AIS suppliers following the IMO"s decision to accelerate its =andatory application. Is this technology helping security and navigation, =ven though it was devised as a safety measure? In what way? * Re: AIS- Alexander Sosonkin[ 25 Apr 2003 / 17:10:00 ] I think that this =echnology will improve safety of navigation by the next reasons: - You may get =uch more information from AIS target than from ARPA or RADAR once. For = Example: dimension of the ship, her draught, COG, SOG, HDG, LOG, =OT, Ship's name, Call Sign, destination. Ship status - at anchor, =nder the way...... As you understand the more information you get about the =arget the easier to take right decision or to communicate with the other =hip. - If you use navigational system ( as we do ) for plotting AIS =argets than their position on the electronic chart will be more accurate than =he same from ARPA, due to AIS sends GPS coordinates and navigational =ystem plots AIS targets acc. to them. - AIS technology is additional source =o existing ones ( VHF, INMARSAT) in sending of safety related =essages to all ship's in the area. - It is one more additional =ndependent source of getting data about the targets in the ships sailing area. It =ould be very useful especially in area where the radar is not able to =atch the target due to it's technical restrictions ( very small target, =arget situated over some obstacle and so on. o Pros and cons of superimposing images - Hugh = Mahony [Lloyd s List][ 25 Apr 2003 / 15:33:59 = The role of Ecdis in ship =perations is moving on, with operators increasingly using it as a navigation =ool. What are the pros and cons of superimposing images driven by other =echnologies onto ecdis images and what are you telling shipowners that they =hould allow and not allow? * Re: Pros and cons of superimposing images - Alexander Sosonkin[ 25 Apr 2003 / =9:44:00 ] While passing type =pproval for ECDIS the surveyor of the certification society carefully checks ECDIS functionality in accordance with IEC standards. One of the =urposes of that verification is to determine that " No additional =unctionality will degrade ECDIS functionality". If a particular ship owner =customer) wants add some extra functionality in our ECDIS we always investigate =if any doubts then we consult with classification society surveyor under =CDIS is) if such functionality could be added without degradation of =CDIS. If it is not possible ( Implementation of functionality will degrade =he ECDIS) than we explain to our customer the reason why it could not =e implemented. o Type approval - Karl Jeffery [Digital Ship][ 25 Apr 2003 / 15:20:59 ] Do you think the type =pproval process should be changed so instead of type approving a companies" products =ou type approve its processes? * Re: Type approval - Andrey =orobiev[ 25 Apr 2003 / 15:56:00 ] I do not think so. =ctually in transport-related technology area the safety aspect is very =ritical. That is why type approval shall be in place to prove that both =quipment design and manufacturers procedures contribute to safety. For example, =urrent approach of MED in Europe deals with both aspects - type =xamination of sample equipment and manufacturers quality management system =valuation in terms of production, support and service. This approach makes ship = operators investment in new equipment safe and reduces the risk of =esign related accidents. Otherwise what criteria shall be used? o Hardware failures- Karl Jeffery [Digital =hip][ 25 Apr 2003 / 14:32:00 ] The biggest problem with =lectronic charts (as cited by Herning Shipping at our conference) are hardware = failures (mainly hard drives) and software crashes. What can you do =o get rid of these problems? To quote Heldur Friis, safety manager, "We =ave had a lot of problems with hardware. We have had some breakdows. We have =hanged hard disks i don"t know how many times. But now the crew can"t go =ithout it." * Re: Hardware failures- Alexander Sosonkin[ 25 Apr 2003 / 17:28:00 = First about hardware. =ardware failure could happen with any device on board the ship. The only possibility to avoid it ( or at least to minimize such risk) to =et hardware from reliable manufacture. All hardware equipment before =o become a part of ECDIS pass very hard tests according IEC standard. Secondly about software. In our company before launch =f the product on the market we perform test procedure during 3-4 month =ncluding special test on "survival" of the system. Also 3-4 sea =rails perform with navigational system before it will be launched. For =xample our systems run by months without stopping even in the port on board =f "STENA" ships. We never heard complaining from our =ustomers that our systems often crashes. o Shipbuilders- Hugh O Mahony [Lloyd s List][ 25 Apr 2003 / 14:26:59 ] Increasingly, shipbuilders =ave encroached on territory formerly the preserve of bridge suppliers. =hat has your response been to these moves? Where are the limits for =hipbuilders, and why? * Re: Shipbuilders- Andrey =orobiev[ 25 Apr 2003 / 15:36:59 ] That fact just proves =he situation that in some cases bridge suppliers did not manage to =ffer economically acceptable, convenient in terms of logistics or =ufficient in terms of equipment reliability solutions. The best response on my =pinion is to recognize that and try either to provide a better service to = shipbuilders to fit their needs in traditional scheme of =ooperation or/and try to find alternative schemes of such cooperation. As to limitations of bridge solution provided by shipbuilder - one is =bvious - future support of this navigational solution. I do not know a =hipyard who has a ready infrastructure for worldwide service and support of navigational necessary for all seagoing vessels. The rest is =chievable - question of time and money. On the other hand should shipyard =other with e.g ECDIS or integration aspects development, another words - is =here a point to reinvent the wheel - probably not and that means that =ppropriate compromise somewhere between. o 2007- Scott Thompson [The Maritime Supplier][ 25 Apr 2003 / 14:00:00 ] ChartCo believes that by =007 the use of digital charts for navigation will equal the use of paper. Would =ou agree? * Re: 2007- Andrey Vorobiev[ 25 Apr 2003 / 14:19:59 ] 100% AGREE. * Re: 2007- Scott Thompson [The Maritime Supplier][ 25 Apr 2003 / 15:10:00 = Thanks for your reply. =hat makes you so confident? * Re: 2007- Andrey Vorobiev[ 25 Apr 2003 / 16:41:00 ] I can see three reasons. 1. Benefits of electronic navigation starts to be recognized by ship operators. Besides of relive from hassle of =aper chart maintenance use of ECDIS gives reduction of risk of =avigational accidents and ship running cost. 2. Some hydrographic =ffices claimed the plans to terminate paper chart collection support =n future. 3. Communication technologies makes cost of digital =ata transfer cheaper and cheaper and that contributes to wider use =f electronic updating mechanisms and other services based on =ata transfer such us remote =ervice. o Training- Scott Thompson [The Maritime Supplier][ 25 Apr 2003 / 12:20:59 ] One of the downsides of =lectronic navigation is that seafarers need to be trained to use the new =ystems. What are your views on this? * Re: Training- Andrey Vorobiev[ 25 Apr 2003 / 13:47:00 ] Personally I do not =onsider this as downside. Of course, it seems to be the case if we just look at =he situation in a way that now additional money shall be spent for =raining. If we consider real benefits given by use of new electronic =quipment properly operated by trained staff such us ship running cost =eduction or reduction of risk of navigational accident then the picture is =uite different. My impression is that now there is a certain =isproportion between technical capabilities and level of required training. =here is no point to introduce new technology on the bridge if it is not being = properly followed by training arrangements. On the other hand =here is a need for that new technology to compensate changes in modern =hipping such as reduced number of crew from 25-30 people early 80s to 7-10 =eople on board of average cargo vessel nowadays. If we talk in =articular about our ECDIS its graphic user interface has been designed in a =ay that user does not need to read manual to understand how to operate =ajor functions. But this fact does not remove the necessity to give =raining on ECDIS to highlight all possible ECDIS limitations and it =unctional overview which is much more complex than e.g. for =adar. o Technical annex - Hugh O Mahony [Lloyd s =ist][ 25 Apr 2003 / 11:09:00 ] The IMO arrived at its =echnical annex on IBS too early, and regulation is now inhibiting technical development. Please comment. * Re: Technical annex - Andrey =orobiev[ 25 Apr 2003 / 13:54:59 ] I must agree with =his statement. IMO performance standard for IBS which was followed by IEC =ocument turned out to be very "general" in their attempt to introduce so =alled functional approach for requirements. As a result of this no one =BS was type approved according to IEC61209 at least to my =nowledge. The result of IMO/IEC work on INS (Integrated Navigation System draft IEC61924) seems to have more chances because it concentrates on =avigation function rather that whole bridge.