MAINHEAD Classification Societies and Navigation DECK HEAD Whilst equipment regulation tends to look at specific pieces of equipment in isolation, the major class societies are tackling ship safety problems by looking at the ship as a whole system. By Dr Andy Norris Photos - sent off a few requests BODY Classification societies have an ever-increasing interest in the design of navigation systems for vessels, not least because of the continuing number of collisions and groundings caused by navigational errors. Classification societies tend to direct their focus at the systems aspects of navigation [looking at the ship as a whole system], while incorporating the IMO, IEC and ISO equipment standards into their class notations. This compares to the IMO, which has traditionally approached navigation by concentrating on individual items of equipment. The subsystems approach of the classification societies provides a useful contribution. SUBHEAD ABS During the last few years, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) has concentrated on tackling systems issues through human element considerations. In October 2003 it published its 'Guidance Notes on Ergonomic Design of Navigation Bridges', adding to its other human element publications. At 116 pages it is a comprehensive document. It gathers together the relevant information from IMO, IACS and other bodies into a single document and gives guidance on ergonomic design and a process to evaluate designs. This is good reading for anybody interested in bridge systems design and can be downloaded from www.eagle.org/rules as Publication 119. ABS would expect that to obtain its NIBS (Navigational and Integrated Bridge System) notation it would be necessary to apply the processes defined in the guidance notes of Publication 119. SUBHEAD Det Norske Veritas and bridge failures Det Norske Veritas (DNV) underlines that around 50% of all accidents at sea are related to navigation bridge system failures. This figure is approximately true whether measured by loss of life, impact on the environment or financially. DNV see a need to strive towards better bridge system design, concentrating in four areas: The human operator (qualifications, quality and capacity); The technical system (specifications, automation level and condition); Operational procedures (functions, tasks, training and aids); Human machine interface (ergonomics, capability and perception). DNV embodies its requirements in the NAUT notations, which have been continually updated since 1983. For instance The NAUT-AW (all waters) notation now requires designated workstations, electronic charts, an automatic grounding avoidance system and fully equipped bridge wing consoles with steering and propulsion control. Erling Linna, a senior nautical surveyor with DNV notes that over 30% of new DNV class requests now specify NAUT notation, compared with 10% in 1998. It has been measured that ships that include NAUT with their DNV class request experience 21 accidents per 1000 years compared to 39 accidents per 1000 years without NAUT. SUBHEAD Bureau Veritas Recently, the main thrust by Bureau Veritas (BV) regarding the evolution of navigation systems has been connected to its programme to enhance the safety of tankers. Good advances made by the industry since 1970 in reducing accidents involving oil spillage have ground to a halt over recent years - a roughly constant number of accidents now occur on a year-to-year basis. BV's programme is aimed at getting the tanker industry back to the continuous improvement record that it used to maintain. Two-thirds of tanker accidents involving oil spillage are due to collisions and groundings. Half of these are navigation errors, with the other half being due to loss of propulsion or manoeuvrability. (The other one-third of spillages is mainly attributable to fire/explosion and hull failure). Both for navigation and machinery BV stresses the benefits of 'redundant' systems. This goes as far as having two independent engine rooms feeding twin steering units. With such an arrangement the vessel can operate safely, even with total failure in one system. In normal operation the dual engine/steering configuration gives better manoeuvrability, which also helps to reduce accidents. With regards to the navigation equipment, in-built redundancy ensures the availability of the navigational functions despite any single failure. Permanent auto-checking is required to fulfil this process and an automatic navigation and tracking system is essential to warn the operator when the vessel deviates from the prescribed course. A number of vessels have already been built incorporating these ideas and other safety features. SUBHEAD Lloyds Register and human element IMAGe Jonathan Earthy Dr Jonathan Earthy, principal Human Factors Specialist with Lloyds Register Although IMO concentrates on determining navigation equipment standards it does not ignore the systems and human element issues. For instance, Regulation 15 of SOLAS Chapter V concerns bridge and navigational system design and there are IMO standards for integrated bridge and integrated navigation systems. IMO is also defining standards for 'navigational displays'. This is another important step, allowing a more systems-based approach to be taken by bridge designers. Jonathan Earthy, a leading human factors expert at Lloyds Register (LR), is adamant that the present 'itemised' equipment approach to the bridge is not acting in the best interests of the mariner. The requirements of the bridge system should be determined from a human element perspective; these should then lead to detailed requirements for each of the functions, within a total-system environment. Dr Earthy considers that the steps made by IMO regarding bridge design embodied in SOLAS V/15, even though introducing human element requirements, are open to interpretation and therefore may do little to improve the real design of bridges. Ultimately, he believes that meaningful change can only be made through IMO and the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), since unilateral solutions will inevitably be constrained by the existing legislation. To this end LR seeks to bring the existence of human science standards and knowledge to the attention of these bodies. The majority of LR's effort with respect to the human element however, is being concentrated into other areas of ship design and operation. Dr Earthy is of the opinion that these other areas will be far more beneficial in improving overall ship safety and the protection of the environment than any 'tinkering at the edges' of bridge design within the present regulations. LR is the sponsor of the Nautical Institute's 'Alert' bulletin. Issues of Alert, which cover all aspects of the human element in the marine world, can be downloaded from www.he-alert.org. SUBHEAD IACS IACS has recently produced a comprehensive document, known as SC181, which gives a common interpretation by the societies on meeting the requirements of SOLAS V/15. IACS presented SC181 to MSC in April of this year. This document can be accessed on the IACS website www.iacs.org.uk. If a truly human element approach could be properly implemented it could certainly lead to different solutions to bridge design than those we have at present since today's solutions are heavily influenced (some consider 'constrained') by individual carriage requirements on bridge navigational instruments, each with their own specifications. SUBHEAD IMO Of course, IMO itself is committed to establishing and updating standards for marine navigational equipment to enhance safety and to improve the protection of the marine environment. These matters are debated and evolved within the Navigation (NAV) subcommittee of IMO's Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). MSC considers the findings of NAV and, as appropriate, issue formal resolutions concerning navigational equipment, which include agreed equipment performance standards as annexes. If necessary, amendments are recommended to be made to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention The international standards bodies, IEC and ISO, produce detailed technical documentation to enable manufacturers and administrations to have a common technical interpretation of IMO's navigation requirements. In particular these include agreed test procedures. This enables manufacturers to produce single versions of equipment capable of being type-approved across the globe.