gCaptain.com

Our friend Richard Rodriguez of the BitterEnd Blog had an excellent post titled VTS - Working with large vessels, that gives Puget Sound boaters tips on communicating with the numerous large ships transiting to and from port.

The post had me thinking about my frequent dealings with Vessel Traffic Services worldwide like the time we entered the Singapore Straights and our Captain ordered, despite loud protests, the deck crew to finish chipping paint on the Flying Bridge. The result… the mate on watch missed a few critical calls from the local vessel controllers and they basically shut down the port for 20 minutes to give us plenty of sea room…. and a $25,000 fine!

Once my mind was past reminding me of few sea stories to tell at the next CAMM meeting I started to realize that I had no idea what the VTS stations I have been calling look like. So here they are:

United States:

The Volpe Center recently implemented a vessel communications and tracking network for the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The network, based on the automatic identification system, promises improved safety, security, and efficiency throughout the Seaway. Above, the new system in use at the Eisenhower Lock vessel traffic control center in New York. (Photo courtesy of Mr. Kam Chin)

New York, NY - Seaman Operations Specialist Jason Dailey, sector operator at the Vessel Traffic Center at Coast Guard Activities New York, Staten Island, N.Y. monitors vessel traffic in the New York Harbor. USCG photo by PA2 Mike Hvozda. [Continue Reading →]

 

 Vessel Traffic Services Overview: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

A Word On Vessel Traffic Service

by Captain John Denham

The purpose of a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) is to provide active monitoring and navigational advice for vessels in particularly confined and busy waterways. There are two main types of VTS, surveilled and non-surveilled. Surveilled systems consist of one or more land-based sensors (i.e. radar, and closed circuit television sites), which output their signals to a central location where operators monitor and manage vessel traffic movement. Non-surveilled systems consist of one or more reporting points at which ships are required to report their identity, course, speed, and other data to the monitoring authority. They encompass a wide range of techniques and capabilities aimed at preventing vessel collisions, rammings, and groundings in the harbor, harbor approach and inland waterway phase of navigation. They are also designed to expedite ship movements, increase transportation system efficiency, and improve all-weather operating capability.”

The above quoted purpose of VTS is considered inaccurate based on the purposes state by two of California’s most involved VTS; San Francisco and Los Angeles. Contested are the words active and manage although included in its purpose, in fact these words are not factual. Active can infer real time or instantaneous and manage can be interpreted to mean supervisory and or directive by order or command.

The rules to prevent collisions require that all vessels shall maintain a proper lookout by all available means as appropriate. The Federal Code of Regulations and the U,S. Code require if radar is installed it should be operational and operated by qualified observers. And, the ordinary practice of seaman implies that mariners should use common sense, professional skill and apply lawfully mandated procedures in a seamanly manner. Therefore, as per the ordinary practice of seaman, if VTS is available, one should accept its assistance as it fulfills the requirements of proper seamanship.

The missing ingredient for VTS fulfillment is local knowledge, skill and experience; the primary traits of pilotage. Unquestionably an experienced pilot is a great asset to help complete or commence a successful voyage. The public relies on pilots to protect them from marine catastrophes caused by wayward ships. The history of ocean transportation is replete with testimony where nations have invoked strict rules to control ill prepared ship masters from causing calamities in peaceful harbors. Mandatory pilotage is a business, a profession and a public safety measure. VTS was conceived as a tool to increase that safety measure.

All VTS are not the same although the purpose is. San Francisco and Los Angeles California are in the same state and yet the two VTS operate and are managed differently.

San Francisco

“We (USCG) execute our mission by MONITORING vessels movements, INFORMING mariners of other vessels and potential hazards, RECOMMENDING courses of action when we see a situation that the mariner may not have seen, and DIRECTING the outcome of situations when necessary to prevent disasters.”

Los Angeles-Long Beach

The goal of the Los Angeles/Long Beach VTS is to provide seamless navigational information to improve vessel transit safety. The USCG/Marine Exchange/Los Angeles and Long Beach pilot organizations have worked together to create a unique system. It is a cooperative effort of the State of California, the USCG, Marine Exchange of Southern California and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach under the authority of the California Code, Harbor and Navigation sections.

Using one recent example: M/V Cosco Busan allision with the fender on “D” tower of the San Francisco-Okland Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007, a casual reader can determine by the mission statement alone, the San Francisco VTS was not oriented to fulfill the needed leadership and coordination role of a VTS.

San Francisco VTS is a government facility operated as a service and not a system. Its function is authoritative and not cooperative and it exists within its own environment, rules and controls. Although participating in community maters there is no functional capability to provide local knowledge, skill or experience in a seamless manner to increase harbor safety. The lack of those needed traits, local knowledge, skill and experience in preventing accidents was confirmed on 7 November 2007. However, readily available a short distance away is an abundance of such traits. The state of California supports the San Francisco Bar Pilots and provides a franchise to guarantee a proper life with regular employment and benefits. Whereas the SF VTS relies on relatively young persons lacking in local knowledge, skill and experience to safe guard the waters of the bay and region .It seems that some arrangement could be reached whereby those traits were constantly available in the VTS in San Francisco.

Captain John Denham is a veteran of 66 years maritime experience in seamanship, ship handling, navigation, piloting, and education. he is also author of The Assistant and DD 891 .

Artificial Intelligence
by Richard Rodriguez

NetworkWorld.com is reporting that the US Air Forces is looking to artificial intelligence for controlling aricraft. Automated ATC - now there’s a concept. Here’s an excerpt: “DARPA says the artificial intelligence software will learn by assembling knowledge from different sources-including generating knowledge by reasoning. According to a Military & Aerospace item, such software has to combine limited observations with subject expertise, general knowledge, reasoning, and by asking what-if questions.”

As a private pilot, I just can’t wait, let alone accept that HAL will eventually sequence me in the pattern.

As a licensed mariner, I can just imagine VTS moving to such an automated system. While it’s possible for federal pencil pushers to justify such a cost saving system; it’s that kind of logic that will lead to the end of the world as we know it.

Imagine the Coast Guard doing away with all Aids to Navigation and issuing a chart plotter to each mariner, both professional and recreational. Sure, it would save money, but the results would be catastrophic.

_____________________________

This post was written by Richard Rodriguez, Rescue Tug Captain, and US Coast Guard approved instructor for License Training. You can read more of his articles at the BitterEnd of the net.

Youtube commentary;

While sailing on San Francisco Bay we had a close encounter with a container ship. The container ship honked at the other sailboat. We had space to turn…but when we tried the container ship blocked our wind. That captain was a hell of a driver! He threaded between our two little sailboats.

I don’t think I need to comment on these boaters but I will say if you’re a boater and sail in an area of heavy ship traffic head over to the Bitterend End blog an soak up some collision avoidance knowledge. You can start here: VTS - Working with large vessels

Yesterday my comments were published on the front page of The San Francisco Chronicle in an article titled; “Hearing today at Presidio - tough queries for spill captain.”

Prior to being asked to comment the Chronicle’s lead maritime reporter contacted our friend Captain Kelly Sweeny who discussed industry wide problems with marine technology. The article states;

Sweeney said the AIS is “occasionally unreliable,” has blind spots such as when a ship is behind islands or structures, and is “antiquated” when compared with modern electronics.

Rewinding to my conversation with the reporters, the first question asked was; “Captain Sweeny believes the system used by San Francisco’s Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) is antiquated, do you agree?” After requesting further clarification I was asked why the pilot’s data on his Electronic Chart Display was trusted over VTS’s radar and AIS information.

My answer was “VTS’ AIS system is susceptible to the delay inherit in the VHF transmission of AIS data” BUT, to be honest my initial gut reaction was, “no AIS is not antiquated… it was fully implemented less then 3 years ago”, I quickly corrected myself. My second answer was quoted in the article and reads;

“The maritime industry is slow to act on electronic devices,” said Capt. John Konrad, who runs a Web site called gCaptain. “By the time they get approvals on electronics, they are obsolete.”

Why the quick change of opinion? It’s because I love AIS.

This technology, properly called Automatic Identification Systems, allows me to overlay important data on my radar displays. It also allows me to contact a ship with a zero cpa (collision course) with great ease. For example, prior to AIS I would have to say “Calling the vessel in position x.xx degrees N, x.xx degrees west on a course of 267 and speed of 6knots this is the xxx on channel 16″ where now I simply look up the ship’s name and say “This is the xxx calling yyy on channel 16″. Furthermore the AIS display gives me the vessels MMSI number which opens up new and creative ways to avoid collisions. Finally, my AIS digital read-out really saved the day (and my career?) when our radars, as the Cosco Busan’s Pilot John Cota said “conked out”.

That was not my only hesitation. San Francisco Pilots are some of the most respected individuals in our profession (a dream job for myself) and I only have positive things to say about my dealings with VTS. So could they be wrong in their choice of equipment? It seemed unlikely.

In defending VTS and the Coast Guard’s systems another respected expert, Rear Adm. Craig Bone - Coast Guard district commander, commented on questions raised by myself and others. In covering today’s hearing The Chronicle reports;

Bone said he could think of no excuse for the crash. He denied reports by maritime sources claiming the electronic systems the Coast Guard uses are out of date. The pilot equipment and onboard navigational equipment are some of the most advanced, he said.

“There is no basis in my mind for this to have ever occurred,” Bone said. “Something on that ship had to go terribly wrong. It was totally preventable.”

So the question becomes; “If AIS is a loved safety improvement endorsed by maritime experts worldwide why does Captain Kelly (and myself!) consider it antiquated?”

The reason is because we can do better! In the world of cutting edge technology solutions are available now that would have given Cota and VTS a much better chance of avoiding the incident. The problem, that I suspect is an industry wide tendency, is two fold. First we are so far behind the technology curve small improvements, like AIS, seem large and exciting. Second, most licensed captains are Luddites (my self included) who want to make sure a new system is reliable before implementing it aboard ships.

I come to this conclusion because, despite my writings on the need to improve shipboard technology (most notably HERE and HERE), I initially had the same reaction as Adm. Bone but quickly changed my mind. Why? Because Capt. Kelly is correct, our systems are antiquated and when new lifesaving improvements become available we must break away from the statement that has been rehearsed by ship captains for centuries; “Only history will tell if this is a good idea”. Exciting changes are happening worldwide and improvements in communications (the number one failure in all good incident chains) are leading the way. We must change with the times and embrace technology as the benefit is a reduction of incidents and a preservation of the environment and human life.

For more information on this topic visit our Archives.

Still agreeing with Admiral Bone? Take a look at technology used by Tampa Pilots or Maine Pilots, upcoming portable ECDIS units, the VTS tracking system in Valdez, well documented problems with AIS Ask yourself “Can I send an area specific sitor message via GMDSS” or “Why can my son video chat with a pen pal in China while I’m having trouble raising a vessel 1000 yards away… and closing?”

Captain John Konrad is a USCG licensed Master Mariner of Unlimited Tonnage currently working aboard an 835′ship in the Gulf of Mexico. Since graduating from SUNY Maritime College he has sailed 4 of the world’s oceans and reports from his ship via satellite.

Cosco Busan - Questions,Questions,Questions

By Bob Couttie

Once the US National Transportation Safety Board has produced the transcripts of the voyage data recorder from the Cosco Busan (Formerly the Hanjin Cairo, the Hanjin name remains on the ship side) we’ll have a better idea of who said what to whom and when. Currently only the pilot’s version of events is available and it is raising a number of questions.

A malfunctioning radar appears to have been an element, though not the cause, of the incident and so far there has been no indication regarding the second radar on the ship’s bridge. Given that there was poor visibility, was the speed of the vessel excessive? Should departure have been delayed until the fog cleared.

The pilot was not familiar with the ECDIS equipment onboard, which does not appear to have malfunctioned. When the pilot asked the Captain to point out the centre of the bridge span the captain allegedly pointed to the bridge support and the pilot navigated accordingly.

With an apparently malfunctioning radar and a lack of familiarity with the primary method of navigation, did the pilot seek to confirm the vessels position with the VTS and/or the accompanying tug?

VTS informed the pilot that the ship was off course, which the Pilot disputed and shortly afterwards a lookout shouted a warning that there was a bridge support ahead and the vessel went hard right and allided with the Delta bridge support.

There also appears to have been a lack of detail in the master/pilot exchange when the latter took conduct of the vessel, as the pilot’s lawyer admits. Would the missing information have been enought to prevent the incident?

There may also have been communications problems between the American pilot and the bridge team who were Chinese. Of there were, to what extent did they reduce the pilot and the bridge team’s situational awareness?

It is not uncommon for pilots to ‘go it alone’ rather than work with a bridge team with whom communication is problematic. This increases the workload on the pilot and reduces his situational awareness. Had the pilot and the bridge team undergone bridge team/bridge resource management training?

Incidents such as this rarely have a single cause, or a single responsible individual. They are usually the result of systemic problems with Bridge Team Management, leadership, culture and navigational practices.

It will be a while before we know the full story of the Cosco Busan, but we’ll hit that bridge when we get to it.

______

Bob Couttie has written for a number of maritime industry publications, including the prestigious Lloyd’s List International daily newspaper and Lloyd’s Ship Manager magazine. His reportage on problems with ship’s officer certification examinations in the Philippines in the late 1990s influenced the adoption of computerized examinations for ship officers by the country’s Professional Regulatory Commission.

Bob currently writes and produces podcasts for The Maritime Accident Casebook

_____

Would you like your article published by gCaptain? Submit it now.

Tim’s Times has a conversation that put a big smile on our faces and reminded me of my favorite TV commercial. Here’s the story:

You have to imagine a heavy French accent and a heavy East European accent replying

French VTS- What kind of vessel are you?

Tanker- We are oil tanker.

French VTS- What kind of ‘ull ‘ave you? (silent h in front of ave and ull)

Tanker- ‘ull ‘ave?

French VTS - yes ‘ull, what kind of ‘ull ave you?

Tanker- please repeat question, not understanding?

French VTS- You are a tanker, what of ‘ULL ave you, a single ‘ULL, a double ‘ULL ?

Tanker- no we have no HOLE in ship, everything OK, no HOLE

French VTS-(exasperated) you have no ‘ULL? You have single or double bottom?

Tanker( penny finally drops) ah we are double HULL vessel…….

Frsnch VTS (audible relief in voice) OK sir sank you, ‘ow many crew onboard?(silent h in front of ow)

Tanker(confused again) ‘OW?

and so on and so on, maybe we should all learn French…..

SMILE

Tim has many other interesting sea stories at his blog: Tim’s Times