Seaways – August 2019

Nautelex

David Patraiko FNI rounds up the latest news, releases and events affecting the

maritime professional throughout the world

Î

ECDIS

Bridge Alarms

Î The newly-released Australian

Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)

investigation into the grounding

of the Australian Border Force

Cutter (ABFC) Roebuck Bay

on Henry Reef has revealed

underlying safety issues with the

effectiveness of ECDIS type-

specific training, ECDIS software

updates and the use of a single

point feature to represent

relatively large physical features

on electronic navigational charts.

While planning the passage

from Saibai Island to Lizard Island,

ABFC Roebuck Bay’s previously

used passage plan was amended,

with its route inadvertently

plotted over Henry Reef. The

ship’s ECDIS identified the reef as

a danger to the planned route.

Î In news that will come as
little surprise to NI members,
frequently sounding bridge
warnings, especially false ones, can
create ‘alarm fatigue’ and hinder
watchkeepers in carrying out their
vital role, reports a new survey
supported by InterManager.
Responding to the findings,
InterManager is calling for
manufacturers to work with ship
operators to address seafarers
concerns and develop better ways
of communicating bridge warnings.
Respondents highlighted there
is a problem with too many similar
sounding alarms and revealed
a need for alarms to be easily
identifiable so that urgent warnings
can be recognised over simple
notification bells.
The survey was conducted by
Shipowners’ Club in conjunction
with the Department of Psychology
at Royal Holloway, University of
London, the International Seafarers
Welfare & Assistance Network
(ISWAN) and InterManager, in order
to investigate whether alarms on
the bridge may affect the attention
and focus of bridge watchkeepers.
The survey was largely
responded to by Masters and
senior officers, which demonstrates

that the concerns are apparent to

experienced and well-qualified

seafarers. Respondents came from a

wide variety of vessel types.

Key findings include:

89% of participants thought false

alarms were a problem.

66% said the alarms were not

easily detectable.

57% of respondents disagreed

that alarms are graded by sound.

50% of participants reported

some frustration with the format of

the alarms themselves. Of particular

concern was the fact that sounds

are frequently the same tone for

all alarms with no distinguishing

factors between alarm systems.

77% of crew do not want to be

disturbed from their watchkeeping

duties.

24% of participants reported that

they never or seldom engaged the

Bridge Navigational Watch Alarm

System due to their concerns at

frequent false alarms.

The main issue raised was

frequent alarm fatigue, followed

by the fact that alarms are hard to

identify, and then concerns over

the design of alarm system or the

bridge itself. The results present

a reoccurring theme regarding

the grading of alarms to assist the

watchkeeper.

Another factor that emerged

from the answers was the crew’s

readiness to silence alarms

without investigation due to ‘alarm

fatigue’ caused by repeated alarm

soundings for no apparent reason.

Some 85% of participants reported

they were aware of the alarms, the

systems they represent and their

location. However, 45% of the

respondents agreed that frequent

alarms are often silenced. When

this was analysed by role, 44% of

Masters, 41% of Chief Officers, 48%

of second officers and 60% of third

officers agreed, showing that this

practice was prevalent among all

ranks.

The report concludes: ‘It is

evident from the feedback of

these seafarers that the current

regulations and arrangements

relating to bridge alarm monitoring

and systems can be improved upon.

Doing so will improve the working

environment of seafarers and assist

with the reduction of related claims.’

Captain Kuba Szymanski,

InterManager Secretary General,

said: ‘At present, as an industry we

are creating an environment for

failure and then we are surprised

when our seafarers fail!

‘We can and must break this

vicious circle. Look at the findings –

50% of our seafarers are frustrated

by frequent alarms. 77% want

alarms to be useful alarms and not

a nuisance. They are extremely busy

people, because we ask them to

be ‘jacks of many trades’. Therefore,

in my opinion, quite rightly they

expect alarms to be useful and

effective.’

Shipowners’ Club said: ‘As vessels

and the equipment on board

become increasingly smarter,

seafarers are required to learn

additional skills for the ongoing

operation and maintenance of

these pieces of technology and

equipment. However, where more

equipment is fitted it naturally

increases the possibility of a

higher number of alarms. From a

Club perspective, we believe that

when fitting additional and new

technology on board it should

always be done with the intention

to enhance the seafarer’s ability to

safely and efficiently navigate and

operate the vessel.’

For further information see

the website: https://www.

shipownersclub.com/investigating-

the-effects-of-bridge-alarms/ Í

However, the crew did not identify

the danger either visually or by

using ECDIS. The vessel continued

on the amended route and

grounded on Henry Reef just after

midnight.

The ATSB found the crew’s ability

to check the amended route was

limited as their training was not

effective in preparing them for the

operational use of onboard ECDIS.

The ATSB says the investigation

highlights that the safe and

effective use of ECDIS as the

primary means of navigation

depends on operators being

thoroughly familiar with the

operation, functionality, capabilities

and limitations of the specific

equipment in use on board their

vessel.

The ATSB also found the vessel’s

ECDIS was not updated to the

latest International Hydrographic

Organization (IHO) standards and

lacked the enhanced safety features

of a new presentation library of

symbology.

‘As a result of the investigation,

the ATSB considers the use of point

features in electronic navigational

charts to represent areas of

relatively significant size on the

earth’s surface is likely to increase

the risk of the hazard posed by such

features being misinterpreted and

potentially reduce the effectiveness

of ECDIS safety checking functions,’

ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg

Hood said. ‘While this did not

specifically contribute to the

grounding of Roebuck Bay, the

investigation has shown that the

implementation of ECDIS has

introduced some unintended risks

to marine navigation.’

Hood says operating crew need

to be aware that navigating with

ECDIS is fundamentally different

from navigation with paper charts.

‘By allowing operators to view and

change an electronic navigational

chart to a larger complication

scale, ECDIS can make single

point features representing rocks,

wrecks and other obstructions

appear progressively smaller as

the scale is changed, creating the

impression it is clear of a ship’s

route or further away than what it

actually is.’ Í

26   | Seaways | August 2019 Read Seaways online at http://www.nautinst.org/seaways