INTERTANKO

paper
HSSC9-05.2D
on
End users perspective on ENC and ECDIS

Leading the way; making a difference

 Introduction
• In the work on INTERTANKO Navigation and
ECDIS Guidelines, INTERTANKO highlights
some issues with ECDIS and ENC’s that require
workarounds.
• Below some of these and others that
INTERTANKO members have brought to our
attention are listed.

Leading the way; making a difference

 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(1)

• The safety contour was originally meant to

separate safe from unsafe waters.
• In the best compiled ENCs, the available
contours are 5-10-15-20 meters.
• It is a rare occurrence that safety contour
really coincides with the line separating safe
from unsafe waters.

Leading the way; making a difference

 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(2)

• INTERTANKO has identified three (3) different

work arounds.
• Each one has distinct advantages and
disadvantages but all of them include the
manual drawing of No-Go Areas so that the
safe area is easily visible to the navigator.
• Any approach to this No-Go area will give a
visible and audible alarm to the navigator.

Leading the way; making a difference

 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(3)
Workaround #1
• Two colour pattern is used.
• Safety contour and safety depth are set equal to safe draft and No-Go Areas are
drawn manually by the navigator.
• Advantages
– Procedure for deciding the safety contour and safety draft are clear, simple and always
remains the same, irrespective of the situation.
– Isolated dangers which are applicable for the vessel will be shown (please note that
isolated dangers will be shown only if the function “show isolated danger in shallow
area” is activated).

• Disadvantages
– Vessel will sail through blue waters, which is considered ‘unsafe’ in scenario one.
– Safety contour alarm will not sound at the proper depth but will sound at a much earlier
stage.
– Area portrayed as ‘unsafe’ (area inside the safety contour) will not correspond to reality.
– Image not clear in dusk and night time setting.
– Misinterpretation and feeling of complacency by navigating with an activated anti-
grounding alarm.
Leading the way; making a difference
 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(4)
• Safety
contour=13
m, Safety
depth=13m
• two color
depth
selected
• No-Go Areas
are drawn
manually by
the
navigator
Leading the way; making a difference
 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(5)
Workaround #2
• Two colour pattern is used.
• Safety contour is set to the previous shallower depth contour than the safe draft.
For example if the safe depth is 13 metres and the available depth contours are
10m and 20m then the safety contour is set at 10m.
• Advantages
– Image clear even in dusk and night time setting.
– Applicable isolated dangers will be shown up to the safety contour depth setting.
– Vessel will sail through ‘safe’ waters. This might be considered as a disadvantage as
more water will be portrayed as safe than what is actually safe but the advantage will be
that the navigators are getting accustomed to how the display should look.
– Safety contour alarm will not sound without it being actually applicable.
• Disadvantages
– Procedure for setting depth alarm settings (safety depth, safety contour) is more
complicated than the procedure in Workaround #1
– Area portrayed as safe (area outside the safety contour) does not correspond to the
reality.
– Safety contour alarm will not sound at the proper depth but will sound at a later stage.

Leading the way; making a difference

 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(6)
• Safety
contour=10m
Safety
depth=13m
• two colour
depth
selected
• No-Go Areas
are drawn
manually by
the navigator
Leading the way; making a difference
 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(7)
Workaround #3
• Four colour pattern is used
• Safety contour is set to the previous shallower depth contour than the safe draft. Deep
contour is set to the next deeper depth contour than the safe draft. Shallow contour may be
set to any available contour lower than the safety contour. Safety depth set equal to safe
draft and No-Go Areas are drawn manually by the navigator. .
• Advantages
– Applicable isolated dangers will be shown up to the safety contour depth setting.
– Vessel will sail through ‘safe’ waters. This might be considered as a disadvantage as more water will be
portrayed as safe than what is actually safe but the advantage is that the navigators are getting
accustomed to how the display should look.
– Safety contour alarm will not sound without it being actually applicable.
– The navigable waters area in this case is narrower and provides to the navigator an extra visual warning
that they are approaching dangerous waters.
– No doubt about the safety of the white area (deep water area in the four colour pattern) as this area is
clearly distinguishable and contains all of the area which is deeper than the deep contour setting.
• Disadvantages
– Procedure for setting depth alarm settings (safety depth, safety contour, deep contour, shallow contour)
more complicated than the procedure in workaround #1 and workaround #2.
– Area portrayed as safe (area outside the safe contour) does not correspond to the reality.
– Safety contour alarm will not sound at the proper depth but will sound at a later stage

Leading the way; making a difference

 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(8)
• Safety
contour=10m
Safety
depth=13m
• Four Colour
Depth
selected
• No-Go Areas
drawn
manually by
the navigator
Leading the way; making a difference
 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(9)
Proposal: Phase one
• The navigator plots manually the no-go areas on the
ENCs. This is time consuming and difficult task since
the navigator has to scan visually all depths in order
to connect those concerned and produce in this
manner the no go area.
• It is obvious as well that the task is subject to lots of
mistakes since the navigator has to almost
constantly interpolates among the existing depths
in order to pick the desired one.
Leading the way; making a difference
 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(10)
Proposal: Phase one (2)
• On the other hand, the ECDIS unit should be able to plot
automatically the no-go area based on the company’s policy.
• Indeed, the unit may also have to interpolate among the
existing values in order to get the proper one, yet it will not
be time consuming.
• In addition, a no go area generated by the unit will certainly
be able to generate alarms in case the navigator is about to
violate it.
• It would further be appropriate if IHO issue a guidance on
how to address the problem with safety contours aimed at
mariners. INTERTANKO can assist in producing such guidance.
Leading the way; making a difference
 Safety Contour and Safety Depth(11)
Proposal: Phase two
• Almost all HOs have today available databases with soundings that goes beyond
what is shown in the charts (not to be mistaken with high density bathymetric
information, that’s another thing).
• Todays ENCs are usually a mirror image of a paper chart where depths and
contours are aimed at the printed charts.
• For the future our ECDIS charts and systems must leave the paper chart thinking
and go fully digital.
• We must have smarter ECDIS systems that are provided with much more data. In
the example above, an ENC should have as high as there is available density
bathymetric data (Such systems are available today for pilots, but off the shelf
systems cannot use them)
• Then use the safety contour thinking as it was intended namely safety contour=safe
draft.
• We will only have one way to do this and its GO areas created with higher density
bathymetric data (not to be mistaken by the high density bathymetric data as laid
out in S-102 that is needed for precision navigation).

Leading the way; making a difference

 Quality of ENC data (1)
• Members of INTERTANKO have raised
concerns on the quality and the speed in
which new and updated terminals, fairways,
light boys, dredging, CATZOC values etc find
their way into charts and ENC’s
• The examples are listed in the paper will not
be repeated here.

Leading the way; making a difference

 Quality of ENC data (2)
Recommendations:
• The Hydrographic Organisations around the world must be
aware of the huge the trust mariners have in the publicised
charts and the information in them.
• The hydrographic offices around the world should make all
efforts to have the correct and most updated information
on charts and ENC’s in a timely manner.
Our main concerns:
i. to minimise the “unassessed” areas particularly near shore
and in ports
ii. Ensure that a too high ZOC value are not used
iii. If the “depth accuracy” figure should be taken into account in
doing UKC calculations (since this was not a practice when
paper charts were in use). an IHO guideline on this would be
very helpful.
Leading the way; making a difference
 Marking in ECDISs and charts
Safety contour set = 10m Safety contour set = 10m Safety contour set = 13m
All Other Standard + spot sounding Standard + Spot sounding

Dangerous object of 10.3m is shown Dangerous object of 10.3m is Dangerous object of 10.3m is
on the chart but not as an isolated NOT shown on the chart at all shown on the chart as an isolated
danger danger and will produce relevant
alerts –

Its very difficult to understand how it has been made selectable for obstructions
with soundings in the ECDIS charts.
This can prove to cause groundings if this has been unticked by mistake.

Leading the way; making a difference

 T & P notices
• INTERTANKO notes the IHO progress on recognizing that T&P
notices in general do not have a role in ENC production and
that the weekly updates should include T&P notices.
• INTERTANKO also recognizes that the new Presentation library
allows for timed entries in ENC updates.
• However, INTERTANKO do, despite the fact that this has been
recognised by HSSC and IHO, there is still not a finalised
solution and UKHO is still issuing AIO because there is a need
to do so.
Recommendations
• INTERTANKO asks HSSC to clarify where this issue is right now
and asks HSSC and IHO for guidance on how to apply T&P
notices onboard ships going forward.
Leading the way; making a difference
 README.TXT file
• The README.TXT file consist of disclaimer and specific
information from the countries that deliver ENCs.
• This information sometimes could be navigationally
significant and required to be reviewed for changes
when the ECDIS is updated.
Recommendations
• INTERTANKO Suggest having an Initial (base) readme
file which may contain the standard information
which currently repeated in every update.
• In addition to this create a new file to contain only the
changed or amended information.

Leading the way; making a difference