NAVIGATION 5

OPERATIONAL USE

OF

ECDIS

INSTRUCTOR

CAPT. D. TUMANENG, M. M. E.

GOOD MORNING / AFTERNOON

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

I AM CAPT. DANIEL D. TUMANENG A LICENSED and EXPERIENCED MASTER MARINER

(Unlimited) ON WORLDWIDE (Bulk, Ro-Ro, Crude Oil Tanker) and FAR EAST ROUTE (Pure

Container) INCLUDING OFFSHORE.

I AM YOUR NEW INSTRUCTOR IN NAVIGATION 5: OPERATIONAL USE OF ECDIS.

THIS IS OUR 12th WEEK IN MIDTERM

OUR INITIAL TOPIC AS PER SCHOOL’s INSTRUCTOR’s GUIDE (IG) IS ABOUT

DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (DGPS).

• Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)

is an enhancement to

Global Positioning System

that provides improved

location accuracy, from

the 15-meter nominal

GPS accuracy to about

10 cm in case of the

best implementations.

• Enhancement means to raise in a higher degree or intensify. e.g. The dynamic circuit network is really an enhancement rather than a replacement.

• to increase in quality or value, to change to a product which is intended to make it better in some way. e.g. New functions, faster or more compatible with other system

A satellite navigation or satnav system is a system ofsatellites that provide autonomous geo-spatial positioningwith global coverage. It allows small electronic receivers todetermine their location (longitude, latitude, and altitude) tohigh precision (within a few metres) using time signalstransmitted along a line of sight by radio from satellites. Thesignals also allow the electronic receivers to calculate thecurrent local time to high precision, which allows timesynchronisation.

A satellite navigation system with globalcoverage may be termed a global navigation satellitesystem or GNSS.

As of April 2013, only the United States

NAVSTAR Global Positioning System

(GPS) and the Russian GLONASS are

global operational GNSSs.

China is in the process of expanding its regional Beidou navigation system into the

global Compass navigation system by 2020. The European Union's Galileo positioning system is a GNSS in initial deployment phase, scheduled to be fully operational by 2020 at the earliest. France, India, and Japan are in the process of developing regional navigation systems.

FundamentalsThe GPS system concept is based on time. The

satellites carry atomic clocks which are synchronized and very stable;

any drift from true time maintained on the ground is corrected daily. Likewise, the satellite locations are monitored precisely. User receivers have clocks as well. However, they are not synchronized with true time, and are less stable.

GPS satellites transmit data continuously which contains their current time and position. A GPS receiver listens to multiple satellites and solves equations to determine the exact position of the receiver and its deviation from true time.

At a minimum, four satellites must be in view of the receiver in order to compute four unknown quantities (three position coordinates and clock deviation from satellite time).

DGPS uses a network of fixed, ground-based reference stations to broadcast thedifference between the positions indicated bythe satellite systems and the known fixedpositions.

These stations broadcast the differencebetween the measured satellite pseudorangesand actual (internally computed)pseudoranges, and receiver stations maycorrect their pseudoranges by the sameamount.

• Q: How can Pseudorange Measurements be Generated from Code Tracking?

• A: Every GNSS receiver processes the received signals to obtain an estimate of the propagation time of the signal from the satellites to the receiver. These propagation times are then expressed in meters to solve for the user position using trilateration.

• Because the resulting distances are not only related to the distance between the receiver antenna and the satellites, i.e. the range, but also to an imperfect alignment of the receiver’s time scale to the GPS time scale, they are called“pseudoranges”.

The digital correction signalis typically broadcast locallyover ground-based transmittersof shorter range.

The term refers to a general technique of augmentation(the amount by which something is increased). The United StatesCoast Guard (USCG) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG)each run such systems in the U.S. and Canada on thelongwave radio frequencies between 285 kHz and 325kHz near major waterways and harbors.

The USCG's DGPS system has been named NDGPS(National DGPS) and is now jointly administered by theCoast Guard and the U.S. Department ofTransportation’s Federal Highway Administration.

It consists of broadcast sites locatedthroughout the inland and coastal portions ofthe United States including Alaska, Hawaii and

Puerto Rico.

A similar system that transmitscorrections from orbiting satellites instead ofground-based transmitters is called a Wide-Area DGPS (WADGPS) or Satellite BasedAugmentation System.

HISTORY

When GPS was first being put into service, the US military was concerned about the possibility of enemy forces using the globally available GPS signals to guide their own weapon systems.

Originally, the government thought the "coarse acquisition" (C/A) signal would only give about 100 meter accuracy, but with improved receiver designs, the actual accuracy was 20 to 30 meters.

Starting in March 1990, to avoid providing such unexpected accuracy, the C/A signal transmitted on the L1 frequency (1575.42 MHz) was deliberately degraded by offsetting its clock signal by a random amount, equivalent to about 100 meters of distance.

I

“COARSE ACQUISITION“ Initially, the highest quality signal was reserved for military use, and the signal available for civilian use wasintentionally degraded (Selective Availability). This changed with President Bill Clinton ordering Selective Availability to be turned off at midnight May 1, 2000, improving the precision of civilian GPS from 100 to 20 meters (328 to 66 ft). The executive order signed in 1996 to turn off Selective Availability in 2000 was proposed by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Perry, because of the widespread growth of differential GPS services to improve civilian accuracy and eliminate the U.S. military advantage.

This technique, known as "Selective

Availability", or SA for short, seriously degraded the usefulness of the GPS signal for non-military users.

More accurate guidance was possible for users of dual frequency GPS receivers that also received the L2 frequency (1227.6 MHz), but the L2 transmission, intended for military use, was encrypted and was only available to authorised users with the encryption keys.

This presented a problem for civilian users who relied upon ground-based radio navigation systems such as LORAN, VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Non-directional Beacon (NDB) systems costing millions of dollars each year to maintain. The advent of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) could provide greatly improved accuracy and performance at a fraction of the cost.

The military received multiple requests from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), United States Coast Guard (USCG) and United States Department of Transportation (DOT) to set S/A aside to enable civilian use of GNSS, but remained steadfast in its objection on grounds of security.

Through the early to mid 1980s, a number of agencies developed a solution to the SA "problem". Since the SA signal was changed slowly, the effect of its offset on positioning was relatively fixed – that is, if the offset was "100 meters to the east", that offset would be true over a relatively wide area.

This suggested that broadcasting this offset to local GPS receivers could eliminate the effects of SA, resulting in measurements closer to GPS's theoretical performance, around 15 meters.

Additionally, another major source of errors in a GPS fix is due to transmission delays in the ionosphere, which could also be measured and corrected for in the broadcast. This offered an improvement to about 5 meters accuracy, more than enough for most civilian needs.

The US Coast Guard was one of the more aggressive proponents of the DGPS system, experimenting with the system on an ever-wider basis through the late 1980s and early 1990s. These signals are broadcast on marine longwave (a range of radio waves with frequency below 300 kilohertz) frequencies, which could be received on existing radiotelephones and fed into suitably equipped GPS receivers.

Almost all major GPS vendors offered units with DGPS inputs, not only for the USCG signals, but also aviation units on either VHF or commercial AM radio bands.

They started sending out "production quality" DGPS signals on a limited basis in 1996, and rapidly expanded the network to cover most US ports of call, as well as the Saint Lawrence Seaway in partnership with the Canadian Coast Guard. Plans were put into place to expand the system across the US, but this would not be easy.

• LEGEND• kHz “Kilohertz” a unit of measurement of

frequency, also known as cycles per second. One kilohertz is equal to 1,000 hertz or 1,000 cycles per second.

• GHz “Gigahertz” is a unit of alternating current (AC) or electromagnetic (EM) wave frequency equal to one thousand million hertz (1,000,000,000 Hz).

• MHz “Megahertz” is equal to 1,000,000 kilohertz. It can also be described as 1,000,000 cycles per second. MHz is use to measure wave frequencies, as well as the speed of microprocessors.

OperationA reference station calculates differential

corrections for its own location and time. Users may be up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the station, however, and some of the compensated errors vary with space: specifically,Satellite Ephemeris Errors and those introduced by Ionospheric and Troposphericdistortions.

For this reason, the accuracy of DGPS decreases with distance from the reference station. The problem can be aggravated if the user and the station lack "inter visibility"—when they are unable to see the same satellites.

• Ephemeris and Clock Errors

While the ephemeris data is transmitted every 30 seconds, the information itself may be up to two hours old. Variability in solar radiation pressure has an indirect effect on GPS accuracy due to its effect on ephemeris errors.

If a fast time to first fix (TTFF) is needed, it is possible to upload a valid ephemeris to a receiver, and in addition to setting the time, a position fix can be obtained in under ten seconds. It is feasible to put such ephemeris data on the web so it can be loaded into mobile GPS devices.

• Overview

User equivalent range errors (UERE) are shown in the table. There is alsoa numerical error with an estimatedvalue, , of about 1 meter. The standard deviations, , for the coarse/acquisition (C/A) and precise codes are also shown in the table.These standard deviations are computed by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual components (i.e., “RSS” for Root Sum Squares).

To get the standard deviation of receiver position estimate, these range errors must be multiplied by the appropriate dilution of precision terms and then RSS'ed with the numerical error. Electronics errors are one of several accuracy-degrading effects outlined in the table above. When taken together, autonomous civilian GPS horizontal position fixes are typically accurate to about 15 meters (50 ft). These effects also reduce the more precise P(Y) code's accuracy.

However, the advancement of technology means that today, civilian GPS fixes under a clear view of the sky are on average accurate to about 5 meters (16 ft) horizontally. The term user equivalent range error (UERE) refers to the error of a component in the distance from receiver to a satellite. These UERE errors are given as ± errors thereby implying that they are unbiased or zero mean errors. These UERE errors are therefore used in computing standard deviations. The standard deviation Of the error in receiver position, , is computed by multiplying PDOP (Position Dilution Of Precision) by , the standard deviation of the user equivalent range errors. is computed by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual component standard deviations.

PDOP is computed as a function of receiver and satellite positions. A detailed description of how to calculate PDOP is given in the section, geometric dilution of precision computation (GDOP). for the C/A code is given by:

The standard deviation of the error in estimated receiver position again for the C/A code is given by: The error diagram on the left shows the inter relationship of indicated receiver position, true receiver position, and the intersection of the four sphere surfaces.

Signal Arrival Time Measurement

The position calculated by a GPS receiver requires the current time, the position of the satellite and the measured delay of the received signal. The position accuracy is primarily dependent on the satellite position and signal delay. To measure the delay, the receiver compares the bit sequence received from the satellite with an internally generated version. By comparing the rising and trailing edges of the bit transitions, modern electronics can measure signal offset to within about one percent of a bit pulse width, , or approximately10 nanoseconds for the C/A code. Since GPS signals propagate at the speed of light, this represents an error of about 3 meters.This component of position accuracy can be improved by a factor of 10 using the higher-chiprate P(Y) signal. Assuming the same one percent of bit pulse width accuracy, the high-frequency P(Y) signal results inan accuracy of or about 30 centimeters

ACCURACY

The United States Federal RadionavigationPlan and the IALA Recommendation on the Performance and Monitoring of DGNSS Services in the Band 283.5–325 kHz cite the United States Department of Transportation's 1993 estimated error growth of 0.67 m per 100 km from the broadcast site but measurements of accuracy across the Atlantic, in Portugal, suggest a degradation of just 0.22 m per 100 km.

VARIATIONS

DGPS can refer to any type of Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS). There are many operational systems in use throughout the world, according to the US Coast Guard, 47 countries operate systems similar to the US NDGPS (Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System).

European DGPS NetworkThe European DGPS network has been mainly developed

by the Finnish and Swedish maritime administrations in order to improve safety in the archipelago between the two countries.In the UK and Ireland, the system was implemented as a maritime navigation aid to fill the gap left by the demise of the Decca Navigator System in 2000.

With a network of 12 transmitters sited around the coastline and three control stations, it was set up in 1998 by the countries' respective General Lighthouse Authorities(GLA) — Trinity House covering England, Wales and the Channel Islands, the Northern Lighthouse Board covering Scotland and the Isle of Man and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, covering the whole of Ireland.

Transmitting on the 300 kHz band, the system underwent testing and two additional transmitters were added before the system was declared operational in 2002.

United States NDGPSThe United States Department of Transportation, in

conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration and the National Geodetic Survey appointed the Coast Guard as the maintaining agency for the U.S. Nationwide DGPS network (NDGPS).

The system is an expansion of the previous Maritime Differential GPS (MDGPS), which the Coast Guard began in the late 1980s and completed in March 1999. MDGPS only covered coastal waters, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi River inland waterways, while NDGPS expands this to include complete coverage of the continental United States.

The centralized Command and Control unit is the USCG Navigation Center , based in Alexandria, VA.

There are currently 85 NDGPS sites in the US network, administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland

Canadian DGPS

The Canadian system is similar to the US system and is primarily for maritime usage covering the Atlantic and Pacific coast as well as the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway.

Australia

Australia runs three DGPS systems: one is mainly for marine navigation, broadcasting its signal on the longwave band; another is used for land surveys and land navigation, and has corrections broadcast on the Commercial FM radio band.

While the third at Sydney airport is currently undergoing testing for precision landing of aircraft (2011), as a backup to the Instrument Landing System at least until 2015. It is called the Ground Based Augmentation System.

Corrections to aircraft position are broadcast via the aviation VHF band.

POST PROCESSING

Post-processing is used in Differential GPS to obtain precise positions of unknown points by relating them to known points such as survey markers.

The GPS measurements are usually stored in computer memory in the GPS receivers, and are subsequently transferred to a computer running the GPS post-processing software.

The software computes baselines using simultaneous measurement data from two or more GPS receivers.

The baselines represent a three-dimensional line drawn between the two points occupied by each pair of GPS antennas.

The post-processed measurements allow more precise positioning, because most GPS errors affect each receiver nearly equally, and therefore can be cancelled out in the calculations.

Differential GPS measurements can also be computed in real-time by some GPS receivers if they receive a correction signal using a separate radio receiver, for example in Real Time Kinematic (RTK) surveying or navigation.

• REAL TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) satellite navigation is a technique used in land survey based on the use of carrier phase measurements of the GPS, GLONASS and/or Galileo signals where a single reference station provides the real-time corrections of even to a centimeter level of accuracy. When referring to GPS in particular, the system is also commonly referred to as Carrier-Phase Enhancement, CPGPS. • This GPS technique uses the radio signal (carrier) to refine it location initially calculated using DGPS. The receivers are able to reach this level of accuracy by performing an initialization, that requires data from at least five common satellites to initialize on-the-fly (in motion) tracking at least four common satellites after initializing.

• The improvement of GPS positioning doesn't require simultaneous measurements of two or more receivers in any case, but can also be done by special use of a single device. • In the 1990s when even handheld receivers were quite expensive, some methods of Quasi-Differential [QDGPS] were developed, using the receiver by quick turns of positions or loops of 3-10 survey points.• QD - The analysis of errors computed using the Global Positioning System is important for understanding how GPS works, and for knowing what magnitude errors should be expected. The Global Positioning System makes corrections for receiver clock errors and other effects but there are still residual errors which are not corrected.

A Short Overview of Differential GPSDifferential GPSThe Global Positioning System delivers about 6 m horizontal error and 10 m in threedimensions to a dual frequency user. This was much worse for the civilian user before the intentional degradation of the signal was removed. It likely will improve in the future.

• Differential GPS works by having a reference system at a known location measure the errors in the signals and send corrections to users in the "local" area. • These corrections will not be universal, but will be useful over a significant area. The corrections are normally sent every few seconds. • The user is generally some mobile platform such as a ship, car, truck or even an aircraft.

For the majority of civilian users single frequency receivers are used. The public ranging modulation is currently only on the L1 signal. The only ranging signal on L2 is encrypted.

The exceptions are survey and scientific systems that use expensive receivers with methods to work around the L2 encryption. The single frequency user must deal with the error produced as the signals go through the ionosphere.

The second frequency was put on the GPS satellites to allow real time removal of the ionosphericerror. It does this to an accuracy better than 1 cm.

The use of differential GPS produces a position solution much more accurate than the that of the standalone user, either civilian or military. It does this even for the single frequency receivers.

In fact all common DGPS systems work only with the L1 frequency signal, even if the receiver can track both L1 and L2 frequencies.

It is common today to have ships navigating on

DGPS with 1 to 2 meter position accuracy.

This note will address the broad topics that lead to the GPS errors, how DGPS corrects for them, the different DGPS techniques and philosophies.

Errors in GPS Range Measurements.

Differential GPS works by measuring the errors in GPS signals at a reference station(s) and sending the corrections to users.

The errors in the signal at then antenna should be almost the same for another receiver close by.

The definition of "close" depends on the specific error.

FIGURE 1: Pseudorange computation based on reception time. On the left side, the satellites are transmitting messages syn¬chronously. On the right side, the four subframes are received asynchronously, due to the different propagation times. X, Y, Z, W are the code periods in every channel at the observation time. The time differences δi are computed on the basis of the distance of the current samples from the beginning of the subframe, which is stored in the channel counters.

A diagram of the errors in a GPS range measurement is shown in Figure 2. The true range, on the top line, is the value needed for navigation. It is between 20,000 and 40,000 km. The otherlarge value on that line, the receiver clock error, is estimated each time a solution is performed.

It can be thousands of kilometers in some receivers. The estimation of the receiver clock error is usually is done each time a new solution is done in a navigation receiver commonly every second. The "other" item on the top line is expanded below. It is only a few 10s of meters at most.

The Selective Availability (SA), when it was turned on, had a standard deviation of about 30

meters. It was usually the dominant error for the civilian GPS user. It is zero now. However, when it was on, it was totally removed by DGPS systems.

The ionosphere error varies greatly with time of day, location, and the solar cycle. It also is a function of elevation angle. Low elevation angle lines of sight have a longer path length within

the ionosphere than vertical paths.

At night for high elevation angles the ionospheric error can be as low as 1 meter. In late afternoon, in the tropics, at solar maximum, a 20 degree elevation angle observation could have a 50 m ionospheric error.

Ionosphere errors in the tropics at the

10 to 30 m level are common.

The atmospheric error is about 2.5 m for a vertical line of sight. It varies in a very predictable way and is well modeled in most receivers. Only at angles below 5 degrees do complex bending effects come into play. Only very precise scientific work needs to go beyond the standard modeling for this error.

The ionosphere is the dominant error for single frequency user. The last three errors are the dominant error sources for a dual frequency user. They are also important for the single frequency user.

In order to navigate, not only are good ranges needed, but also the location of the end point of the range. That is, the positions of the satellites are required.

Providing this information is the job of the US Air Force, which runs the GPS system. They use a series of monitor stations to acquire data in real time and estimate the position, velocity, and satellite clock error of eachsatellite every 15 minutes.

They use these solutions to make a prediction of the satellite parameters for the following day. These predictions are then parameterized and loaded into thesatellite onboard memory.

This data is sent to the user on the GPS signal. It is called the Broadcast Ephemeris (BCE). On average this prediction will be 12 hours old.

The largest error will be the satellite clock error. If all the satellite clocks are not synchronized, navigation is degraded. Setting all the GPS satellite clocks to a form of Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) accomplishes this. (The time differs from UTC by some integer number of seconds.

For this reason it is called GPS Time.) Even though extremely good atomic clocks areon each satellite, there is a wander in the clocks. This is a random process and cannot be modeled.

There may also be some residual systematic error in the predicted clock state. All these errors, which are marked with a diagonal bar in Figure 2, are the same for close receivers.

These are the errors that are removed in DGPS systems.

There are two remaining errors that are specific to individual receivers. The multipath error is caused by reflections of the GPS signals from metal objects near the antenna. DGPS reference stations go to great lengths to minimize this error though good antenna locations.

The DGPS user may not have this option. The last error is the thermal noise inside the receiver. This is afunction of the individual receiver design. It is lower in more expensive receivers. However each year the receiver noise level on new receivers decreases some. It is like the increase in speedon computers, but not quite as dramatic a change.

Today the receiver noise varies from 2 m to 10 cm for civilian receivers.

Today the ionosphere and Orbit-and-Clock errors are usually the dominant errors for thecivilian navigator. DGPS essentially removes these.

The orbit error is only slightly different forusers within a 1000 km or so of the reference station. That cannot be said of the ionosphereerror. Its change with distance from the reference station is discussed later under ionosphericdivergence.

The remaining issues in designing or choosing a DGPS system are how to get the errors to th user, and what solution technique to use.

Correction Parameterization and DistributionThere are two approaches to parameterizing

the errors measured by the reference station(s). In the most common approach, the range error is measured for each satellite and these satellite by satellite errors sent to the user.

This is a point approach. It is valid at the reference receiver. Its validity will decrease with distance from that site. In the second approach multiple stations are used to estimate the errors over an extended area.

This is called Wide Area DGPS (WADGPS). The Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is this type of system.

There are also commercial systems of this type. The corrections are parameterized in a way that allows the user to compute corrections based on his location. Two users separated by a 100 km or so will get different

corrections from the same WADGPS parameter set.

In both these cases the information volume is quite small. A few hundred bytes contain one set of corrections for all the satellites in an area. The corrections are sent at different rates by different systems.

Six second updates are common. The more accurate systems use one second updates. This is still a very low data rate. Note that distribution of the corrections is just a communication problem.

Standard DGPS systems normally distribute the corrections to the user over a radio link. The

US Coast Guard has an existing system of directional radio beacons in the 275 to 325 kHz band.

It chose to modulate the DGPS corrections from its reference stations on these signals. If it

were not for ionospheric divergence (see below) the only limitation on the use of the US Coast

Guard DGPS signals would the range at which these radio beacons can be received.

A map showing the USCG West Coast sites, the broadcast frequencies, and their official coverage

areas is shown in Figure 3.

The original USCG

system covered the

West Coast, the East

Coast, the Gulf Coast,

the Great Lakes, and

the Mississippi River.

As seen on the map,

new inland sites

are now being added

to the system.

The FAA uses a geostationary satellite to broadcast the WAAS corrections. The satellite has a transponder and just retransmits a signal originating on the ground. This same approach is used by at least one commercial service that provides WADGPS.

Some other commercial services put the data on a sub-carrier on FM radio broadcasts. For science and surveying applications, a special radio link is often set up.

This is usually done when a dedicated reference site is installed for a particular survey or science study or

campaign.

There are also experimental systems that deliver the corrections over the Internet.

The format of the correction information varies. There are now two public formats, the RTCM-104 and the WAAS. The RTCM or Radio TeleCommunications, Marine, is a standardsorganization.

The format was generated by its special committee number 104. The WAAS wasdesigned by a similar industry/government organization, the RTCA.

In addition many manufactures of high end equipment have a proprietary format. The manufacturers formats are often aimed at the more precise DGPS method called Kinematics.

The RTCM format was adopted by the US Coast Guard. This has lead to its wide acceptance. Essentially all receivers that do DGPS positioning accept RTCM-104 as one of their input formats.

The FAAs WAAS format has been standardized more recently. However, because the signal is available thought out North America on a free basis, it is being incorporated into many receivers.

(The WAAS is currently in a test and evaluation phase.) The WAAS format is mandated for use in aircraft, but boat, car and handheld GPS receivers are available that use it.

This format has more error checking than the RTCM format because it is designed for a "safetyof life" function.

In most cases, a separate receiver is used to receive the DGPS corrections. These are then feed

to the GPS receiver over a RS232 serial line. With this architure, the corrections could come from any of several sources.

In some instances multiple sources are on ships and a simple switch is used to change between sources.

In other cases standard sources (such as the US Coast Guard) are received at some convenient location and relayed by other means, such as

cell telephone or VHF/UHF radio links, to the user.

Ionospheric Divergence

The normal limitation on the utility of DGPS corrections is the difference in the ionosphericerror seen by the reference station and the user.

This ionospheric error is determined by the

ionospheric conditions where the line of sight passes through 300 to 400 km altitude.

For a vertical ray, this is overhead. For a low elevation ray it can be 1500 km away (about 15 degrees of earth central angle).

The ionosphere is much more variable than the atmosphere. It most dramatic variation is from

day to night. It essentially goes away late at night. It rebuilds quickly at dawn and then intensifies thought the day. Its decay after sunset is gradual.

Maps of the peak electron density of the ionosphere are shown in Figures 4 and 5. These values are proportional to the ionospheric error.

The plots are for 1800 UT, when sunrise is in the Pacific and sunset over the zero of longitude line. Sunrise at 300 km occurs before it does on the ground.

The data in Figure 4 is for

Solar maximum. This

occurred in 2000-2001

for the current Solar cycle.

The solar cycle is about 11

years long. Therefore the

next minimum should

occur in 2006.

The two humps during the day are caused by the magnetic field of the earth. The peaks are about 12 degrees north and south of the geomagnetic equator, which is shown as a line on these plots.

The precise location of these "equatorial anomalies" can vary from day to day. These figures are analogous to climate models, not weather data.

The spatial gradients on the sides of these peaks will be where the largest spatial divergences in DGPS signals occur.

There are also large gradients a dawn. Note that satellites to the south at 20 degrees elevation angle seen from the extreme southern US will be seen though this gradient on some days.

Sites nearer the equator will experience this more often and at higher elevation angles.

Solution MethodThere are two common methods of finding a

location with differential GPS. The most commonmethod for navigation applications is to use corrected ranges. This is the same solution methodused by the standalone user, but with some systematic errors removed.

The survey community has used the carrier phase as its basic measurement from the beginningof GPS surveying. This was then applied to cases where the unknown location was in motion.This was called Kinematics.

In practice kinematics can only be done with dual frequency data. Even though both frequencies are used, it is sensitive to ionospheric divergence. The user usually needs to be within 30 km of the reference site during the day.

In the beginning, kinematics was only done on a post-processing basis. However with the increase in computation capabilities, it became possible to do the kinematic solution inside the GPS receiver. This is called Real Time Kinematics, or RTK.

Many high end dual frequency receivers now can do RTK. It is still limited to ranges of 30 to 100 km of the reference sites. Also the system often needs to be initialized at 30 km or less.

The original version of the RTCM format did not allow for the corrections necessary for RTK.

However, revision 2 has new message formats designed for this.

Many RTK implementations allow both the RTCM and manufacturer proprietary DGPS formats.

New DevelopmentsThe package of changes that was accepted

when the Selective Availability was turned offincludes two other items important to civilian DGPS users. First the publicly available ranging signal will be placed on both the GPS frequencies beginning with launches in 2003.

The earlier spacecraft only had this signal on the L1 frequency. This will make it possible for low end receivers now to automatically correct for the ionospheric error.

Using the L2 signal in DGPS will require some changes to the RTCM format, but this is expected.

Beginning in about 2007, satellites launched will have a third civilian frequency, called L5. This will allow kinematic solutions to be initialized and utilized at much longer ranges.

The precise ranges will have to be determined post launch. It is likely that WAAS will not utilize the new signal on L2, but it is likely to use the L5 signal.

This is due to a low, but measurable, probability of interference on L2 with some radars and mobile communications services in Europe.

There are many science experiments done each year using GPS. Some, for example fromNASAs Goddard Space Flight Center, have done kinematics out to a thousand kilometers.

Experiments have been conducted on using a network of reference stations to generate standard GPS corrections. Receivers are becoming immune to multipath, at least for the top of the line receivers.

The noise level in receivers is also coming down. Where all this will lead is unclear, but the results can only be beneficial to the GPS community.

The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS

Is a Chinese satellite navigation system. It consists of two separate satellite constellations – a limited test system that has been operating since 2000, and a full-scale global navigation system that is currently under construction.

The first BeiDou system, officially called the BeiDouSatellite Navigation Experimental System (simplified Chinese:traditional Chinese and also known as BeiDou-1, consists of three satellites and offers limited coverage and applications.

It has been offering navigation services, mainly for customers in China and neighboring regions, since 2000.

The second generation of the system, officially called the BeiDou Satellite Navigation System (BDS) and also known as COMPASS or BeiDou-2, will be a global satellite navigation system consisting of 35 satellites, and is under construction as of January 2013.

It became operational in China in December

2011, with 10 satellites in use, and began offering services to customers in the Asia-Pacific region in December 2012.

It is planned to begin serving global customers upon its completion in 2020.

Nomenclature

The BeiDou Navigation System is named after the Big Dipper constellation, which is known in Chinese as

Běidǒu. The name literally means "Northern Dipper", the name given by ancient Chinese astronomers to the

seven brightest stars of the Ursa Major constellation.

Historically, this set of stars was used in navigation

to locate the North Star Polaris. As such, the name BeiDou also serves as a metaphor for the purpose of the

satellite navigation system.

HISTORYConception and initial development

The original idea of a Chinese satellite navigation system was conceived by Chen Fangyun and his colleagues in the 1980s.

According to the China National Space Administration, the development of the system would be carried out in three steps:

1. 2000–2003: experimental BeiDou navigation system consisting of 3 satellites

2. by 2012: regional BeiDou navigation system covering China and neighboring regions

3. by 2020: global BeiDou navigation systemThe first satellite, BeiDou-1A, was launched on 30 October

2000, followed by BeiDou-1B on 20 December 2000. The third satellite, BeiDou-1C (a backup satellite), was put into

orbit on 25 May 2003.

The successful launch of BeiDou-1C also meant the establishment of the BeiDou-1 navigation system. On 2 November 2006, China announced that from 2008 BeiDouwould offer an open service with an accuracy of 10 meters, timing of 0.2 microseconds, and speed of 0.2 meters/second.

In February 2007, the fourth and last satellite of the BeiDou-1 system, BeiDou-1D (sometimes called BeiDou-2A, serving as a backup satellite), was sent up into space. It was reported that the satellite had suffered from a control system malfunction but was then fully restored.

In April 2007, the first satellite of BeiDou-2, namely Compass-M1 (to validate frequencies for the BeiDou-2constellation) was successfully put into its working orbit.

The second BeiDou-2 constellation satellite Compass-G2 was launched on 15 April 2009. On 15 January 2010, the official website of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System went online, and the system's third satellite (Compass-G1) was carried into its orbit by a Long March 3C rocket on 17 January 2010.

On 2 June 2010, the fourth satellite was launched successfully into orbit. The fifth orbiter was launched into space from Xichang Satellite Launch Center by an LM-3I carrier rocket on 1 August 2010.

Three months later, on 1 November 2010, the sixthsatellite was sent into orbit by LM-3C. Another satellite, the Beidou-2/Compass IGSO-5 (fifth inclined geosynchonousorbit) satellite, was launched from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center by a Long March-3A on 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Chinese involvement in Galileo system In September 2003, China intended to join the European

Galileo positioning system project and was to invest €230 million (USD296 million, GBP160 million) in Galileo over the next few years. At the time, it was believed that China's "BeiDou" navigation system would then only be used by its armed forces. In October 2004, China officially joined the Galileo project by signing the Agreement on the Cooperation in the Galileo Program between the "Galileo Joint Undertaking" (GJU) and the "National Remote Sensing Centre of China" (NRSCC).

Based on the Sino-European Cooperation Agreement on Galileo program, China Galileo Industries (CGI) , the prime contractor of the China’s involvement in Galileo programs, was founded in December 2004. By April 2006, eleven cooperation projects within the Galileo framework had been signed between China and EU.

However, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported in January 2008 that China was unsatisfied with its role in the Galileo project and was to compete with Galileo in the Asian market.

Experimental system (BeiDou-1)

Description

BeiDou-1 is an experimental regional navigation system, which consist of four satellites (three working satellites and one backup satellite).

The satellites themselves were based on the Chinese DFH-3 geostationary communications satellite and had a launch weight of 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) each.

Unlike the American GPS, Russian GLONASS, and European Galileo systems, which use medium Earth orbit satellites, BeiDou-1 uses satellites in geostationary orbit.

This means that the system does not require a large constellation of satellites, but it also limits the coverage to areas on Earth where the satellites are visible.

The area that can be serviced is from longitude 70°E to 140°E and from latitude 5°N to 55°N. A frequency of the system is 2491.75 MHz.

Completion [The first satellite, BeiDou-1A, was launched on

October 31, 2000. The second satellite, BeiDou-1B, wassuccessfully launched on December 21, 2000. The last operational satellite of the constellation, BeiDou-1C,was launched on May 25, 2003.

Position calculationIn 2007, the official Xinhua News Agency reported

that the resolution of the BeiDou system was as high as0.5 metres. With the existing user terminals it appears that the calibrated accuracy is 20m (100m,uncalibrated).

TerminalsIn 2008, a BeiDou-1 ground terminal cost around

CN¥20,000RMB (US$2,929), almost 10 times the price ofa contemporary GPS terminal. The price of the terminals was explained as being due to the cost of imported microchips.

At the China High-Tech Fair ELEXCON of November 2009 in Shenzhen, a BeiDou terminal priced at CN¥3,000RMB was presented.

ApplicationsOver 1,000 BeiDou-1 terminals were used after the 2008

Sichuan earthquake, providing informationfrom the disaster area. As of October 2009, all Chinese border guards in Yunnan are equipped with BeiDou-1 devices.

According to Sun Jiadong, the chief designer of the navigation system, "Many organizations have been using our system for a while, and they like it very much."

Global system (BeiDou Navigation Satellite System or BeiDou-2)

Description

Older BeiDou-1, but rather supersedes it outright. The new system will be a constellation of 35 satellites, which include 5 geostationary orbit

satellites for backward compatibility with BeiDou-1, and 30 nongeostationary satellites in medium earth orbit and 3 in inclined geosynchronous orbit), that will offer complete coverage of the globe.

AccuracyThere are two levels of service provided; a free service

to civilians and licensed service to the Chinese government and military.

The free civilian service has a 10-meter location-tracking accuracy, synchronizesclocks with an accuracy of 10 nanoseconds, and measures speeds to within 0.2 m/s.

The restricted military service has a location accuracy of 10 centimetres, can be used forcommunication, and will supply information about the system status to the user.

To date, the military service has been granted only to the People's Liberation Army and to the Military of Pakistan.

Constellation

The new system will be a constellation of 35 satellites, which include 5 geostationary orbit (GEO) satellites and 30 medium Earth orbit (MEO) satellites, that will offer complete coverage of the globe.

The ranging signals are based on the CDMA principle and have complex structure typical of Galileo or modernized GPS. Similar to the other GNSS, there will be two levels of positioning service: open and restricted (military).

The public service shall be available globally to general users. When all the currently planned GNSS systems are deployed, the users will benefit from the use of a total constellation of 75+ satellites, which will significantly improve all the aspects of positioning, especially availability of the signals in so-called urban canyons.

The general designer of Compass navigation system is Sun Jiadong, who is also the general designer of its predecessor, the original Beidou navigation system.

FrequenciesFrequencies for Compass are allocated in four bands:

E1,E2, E5B, and E6 and overlap with Galileo. The fact of overlapping could be convenient from the point of view of the receiver design, but on the other hand raises the issues of inter-system interference, especially within E1 and E2 bands, which are allocated for Galileo's publicly regulated service.

However, under International Telecommunication Union (ITU) policies, the first nation to start broadcasting in a specific frequency will have priority to that frequency, and any subsequent users will be required to obtain permission prior to using that frequency, and otherwise ensure that their broadcasts do not interfere with the original nation's broadcasts. It now appears that Chinese Compass satellites will start transmitting in the E1, E2, E5B, and E6 bands

It now appears that Chinese Compass satellites will start transmitting in the E1, E2, E5B, and E6 bands before Europe's Galileo satellites and thus have primary rights to these frequency ranges.

Although little was officially announced by Chinese authorities about the signals of the new system, the launch of the first Compass satellite permitted independent researchers not only to study general characteristics of the signals but even to build a Compass receiver.

Compass-M1Compass-M1 is an experimental satellite launched

for signal testing and validation and for the frequency filing on 14 April 2007. The role of Compass-M1 for Compass is similar to the role of the GIOVE satellites for the Galileo system. The orbit of Compass-M1 is nearly circular, has an altitude of 21,150 km and an inclination of 55.5 degrees.

Compass-M1 transmits in 3 bands: E2, E5B, and E6. In each frequency band two coherent sub-signals have been detected with a phase shift of 90 degrees (in quadrature).

These signal components are further referred to as "I" and "Q". The "I" components have shorter codes and are likely to be intended for the open service.

The "Q" components have much longer codes, are more interference resistive, and are probably intended for the restricted service. IQ modulation has been the method in both wired and wireless digital modulation since morsetting carrier signal 100 years ago.

The investigation of the transmitted signals started immediately after the launch of Compass -M1 on 14April 2007. Soon after in June 2007, engineers at CNES reported the spectrum and structure of the signals.

A month later, researchers from Stanford University reported the complete decoding of the “I” signals components. The knowledge of the codes allowed a group of engineers at Septentrio to build the COMPASS receiver and report tracking and multipath characteristics of the “I” signals on E2 and E5B.

Characteristics of the "I" signals on E2 and E5B are generally similar to the civilian codes of GPS (L1-CA and L2C), but Compass signals have somewhat greater power.

The notation of Compass signals used in this

page follows the naming of the frequency bands and agrees with the notation used in the American

literature on the subject, but the notation used by the Chinese seems to be different and is quoted in the first row of the table.

OPERATION

In December 2011, the system went into operation on a trial basis. It has started providing navigation, positioning and timing data to China and the neighbouring area for free from 27 December.

During this trial run, Compass will offer positioning accuracy to within 25 meters, but the precision will improve as more satellites are launched.

Upon the system's official launch, it pledged to offer general users positioning information accurate to the nearest 10 m, measure speeds within 0.2 m per second, and provide signals for clock synchronisation accurate to 0.02 microseconds.

The BeiDou-2 system began offering services for the Asia-Pacific region in December 2012. At this time, the system could provide positioning data between longitude 55°E to 180°E and from latitude 55°S to 55°N.

COMPLETIONIn December 2011, Xinhua stated that “the basic

structure of the Beidou system has now been established, and engineers are now conducting comprehensive system test and evaluation.

The system will provide test-run services of positioning, navigation and time for China and the neighboring areas before the end of this year, according to the authorities.

"The system became operational in the China region that same month. The global navigation system should be finished by 2020. As of December 2012, 16 satellites for BeiDou-2 have been launched, 14 of them are in service.

IRNSS

(INDIAN NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM)

The System: Fregat Design Ambiguity Steered Galileo Wrong

November 1, 2014 By GPS World staff

Cross-Installed Hydrazine, Helium Lines Froze Thrusters the root cause of the anomaly that sent two Galileo satellites into the wrong orbit on August 22 was a shortcoming in the system thermal analysis performed during stage design, and not an operator error during stage assembly, according to findings by an independent inquiry board.

The independent inquiry board was created by Arianespace,

According to ISRO, the document is being released to the public to facilitate research and development and to aid the commercial use of the IRNSS signals for navigation-based applications.

Registration is required for ICD download access at a new IRNSS website.

At the moment, only the ICD is available at this website.

The next IRNSS satellite launch is scheduled for the second week of October.

The most recent launch was in April, of the second IRNSS satellite, IRNSS-1B.

IRNSS is an independent regional navigation satellite system being developed by India.

It is designed to provide accurate position information service to users in India and the region extending up to 1,500 kilometers from its boundary.

IRNSS will provide two types of service: Standard Positioning Service (SPS)

and Restricted Service (RS).

It is expected to provide a position accuracy of better than 20 meters in the primary service area.

NovAtel Supplies Reference Receivers for IRNSS

Ground Segment

December 23, 2013 By GPS World staff

NovAtel Inc., a manufacturer of GNSS precise positioning

technology, has announced an agreement with the Indian

Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to supply reference

receiver products for use in the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) ground segment. India-based Elcome Technologies Pvt. Limited, a sister company to NovAtel in the Hexagon Group of Companies, will provide local integration, training and technical.

• IRNSS Success• The Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)

successfully launched• its first satellite on July 1 from the Satish Dhawan Space

Centre at Sriharikota• spaceport on the Bay of Bengal. An Indian-built Polar

Satellite Launch Vehicle• PSLV-C22, XL version, carried the 1,425-kg satellite

aloft.• IRNSS-1A is the first of seven satellites that will make up

the new constellation:• four satellites in geosynchronous orbits inclined at 29

degrees, with three more• in geostationary orbit. IRNSS-1A is one of the

geosynchronous satellites.

The Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) successfully launched its first satellite on July 1 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre at Sriharikot spaceport on the Bay of Bengal.

An Indian-built Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle

PSLV-C22, XL version, carried the 1,425-kg satellite aloft.

IRNSS-1A is the first of seven satellites that will make up the new constellation: four satellites in geosynchronous orbits inclined at 29 degrees, with three more in geostationary orbit. IRNSS-1A is one of the geosynchronous satellites.

Following launch, the master control facility conducted five orbit maneuvers to position the satellite in its circular inclined geosynchronous orbit (IGSO) with an Equator crossing at 55 degrees east longitude.

Reports indicate that orbitraising maneuvers have been completed, and all the spacecraft subsystems have been evaluated and are functioning normally.

IRNSS-1A’s drift eastward from 47 degrees east longitude on July 10 was gradually slowed, and the satellite achieved its assigned inclined geosynchronous orbit, with a 55-degree East equator crossing, by July 18.

The orbit inclination is 27.03 degrees.

Payloads. IRNSS-1A carries two types of payloads, navigation and ranging.

The navigation payload will operate in L5 band (1176.45 MHz) and S band (2492.028 MHz), using a Rubidium atomic clock.

The ranging payload consists of a C-band transponder that facilitates accurate determination of the range of the satellite.

IRNSS-1A also carries corner-cube retro-reflectors for laser ranging. Its mission life is 10 years.

IRNSS Signal Close up

By Richard Langley, Steffen Thoelert, and Michael MeurerThe spectrum of signals from IRNSS-1A, the first satellite in the

Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System, as recorded by German Aerospace Center researchers in late July, appears to be consistent with a combination of BPSK(1) and BOC(5,2) modulation.

Figure 1 shows that, centered at 1176.45 MHz, the signal has a singlesymmetrical main lobe and a number of side lobes characteristic of the signalstructure that the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) announcedwould be used for IRNSS transmissions in the L-band.

Figure 2 shows the corresponding IQ constellation diagram. Further analysis will be required to sleuth additional signal details as ISRO, so far, has not publicly released an IRNSS interface control document describing the signal structure in detail.

Quasi-zenith Satellite System (QZSS)watching Japan From Above

As mobile phones equipped with car navigation or GPS (*1) havebecome widespread, positioning information using satellites isimperative to our lives. To specify a location, we need to receive signals from at least four satellites. However, in some urban or mountainous areas, positioning signals from four satellites are often hampered by skyscrapers or mountains, and that has often caused significant errors.

The QZSS consists of a multiple number of satellites that fly in theorbit passing through the near zenith over Japan. By sharing almostthe same positioning signals for transmission with the currentlyoperated GPS as well as the new GPS, which is under developmentin the U.S., the system enables us to expand the areas and timeduration of the positioning service provision in mountainous and urbanregions in Japan.

Furthermore, the QZSS aims at improving positioning accuracy of onemeter to the centimeter level compared to the conventional GPS Error of tens of meters by transmitting support signals and through othermeans

In order to have at least one quasi-zenith satellite always flying nearJapan's zenith, at least three satellites are necessary. The first quasizenithsatellite "MICHIBIKI" carries out technical and applicationverification of the satellite as the first phase, then the verificationresults will be evaluated for moving to the second phase in which theQZ system verification will be performed with three QZ satellitesLaunch date: September 11, 2010

Some of you who usually use car navigation may feel that the Current system has enough functionality. However, the satellite positioning systemis not just for car navigation. It is imperative for mapping, measurementsfor construction work, monitoring services for children and senior citizens,automatic control of agricultural machinery, detecting earthquakes And volcanic activities, weather forecasting and many other applicable fields.Therefore, an improvement in accuracy and reliability is called for fromvarious areas. New service using more accurate positioning data may beborn when positioning accuracy is further improved by the QZSS thus wecan capture location information with an error of within one meter.

Future MICHIBIKI activity

The MICHIBIKI was launched by the H-IIA Launch Vehicle No. 18 onSeptember 11, 2010. After being injected into the quasi-zenith orbit, theMICHIBIKI is now under a three-month initial functional verification.

Then, its technical and application verification will be carried out in cooperation with concerned organizations. (During the verification, we can receive signals from the MICHIBIKI.

However, in the early stage, we will place an alert flag as we verify the accuracy of information contained in its signals. To use the MICHIBIKI, please use a special receiver, which is specially processed to not exclude MICHIBIKI data from your positioning calculation even though an alert flag is in effect. In addition, please be aware thatpositioning accuracy may deteriorate compared to that using only theGPS.)

You cannot receive MICHIBIKI signals through a commercially availableGPS receiver such as a car navigation system, but you can do so by modifying a conventional device. We heard that there are some machinesthat can receive MICHIBIKI signals by improving software. JAXA and related organizations are now promoting receiver manufacturers to cop with MICHIBIKI signal reception.

Doppler Orbitography and RadiopositioningIntegrated by Satellite (DORIS)

is a French satellite

system used for the

determination

of satellite orbits

(e.g. TOPEX/Poseidon)

and for positioning.

Principle

Ground-based radio beacons emit a signal which is picked up by receiving satellites. This is in reverse configuration to other GNSS, in which the transmitters are space-borne and receivers are in majority near the surface of the Earth.

A frequency shift of the signal occurs that is caused by the movement of the satellite (Doppler effect). From this observation satellite orbits, ground positions, as well as other

parameters can be derived.

OrganizationDORIS is a French system which was initiated and is

maintained by the French Space Agency (CNES). It is operated from Toulouse.

Ground segmentThe ground segment consists of about 50-60

stations, equally distributed over the earth and ensure a good coverage for orbit determination. For the installation of a beacon only electricity is required because the station only emits a signal but does not receive any information. DORIS beacons transmit to the satellites on two UHF frequencies, 401.25 MHz and 2036.25 MHz.

Space segmentThe best known satellites equipped with DORIS receivers are the altimetrysatellites TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason 1 and Jason 2. They are used to observe theocean surface as well as currents or wave heights. DORIS contributes to theirorbit accuracy of about 2 cm.Other DORIS satellites are the Envisat, SPOT, HY-2A and CryoSat-2 satellites.

Positioning

Apart from orbit determination, the DORIS observations are used for positioning of ground stations.

The accuracy is a bit lower than with GPS, but it still contributes to the International Terrestrial Reference

Frame (ITRF).

DORIS

The Doppler Orbitographyand Radio-positioning Integrated by Satelliteinstrument is a microwave tracking system that can be utilized to determinethe precise location of the ENVISAT satellite. Versions of the DORIS instrument are currently flying on the SPOT-2 and Topex-Poseidon missions.

DORIS operates by measuring the Doppler frequency shift of a radio signal transmitted from ground stations and received on-board the satellite. The reference frequency for the measurement is generated by identical ultrastable oscillators on the ground and on-board the spacecraft.

Currently there are about 50 ground beacons placed around the globe which cover about 75% of the ENVISAT orbit. On board measurements are performed every 7 - 10 seconds.

Precise Doppler shift measurements are taken using an S-band frequency of 2.03625 GHz, while a second VHSband signal at 401.25 MHz is used for ionosphericcorrection of the propagation delay.

On the ground, DORIS data is used to create precise orbit reconstruction models which are then used for all satellite instruments requiring precise orbit position information.

In addition, DORIS operates in a Navigator mode in which on-board positioning calculations are performed in real-time and relayed to the ground segment.

GLONASS (Week 9)

GLONASS (Russian: acronym for "Globalnayanavigatsionnayasputnikovaya sistema" or "Global Navigation Satellite System", is a space-based satellite navigation system operated by the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces.

It provides an alternative to Global Positioning System (GPS) and is the second alternative navigational system in operation with global coverage and of comparable precision.

Manufacturers of GPS devices say that adding GLONASS made more satellites available to them, meaning positions can be fixed more quickly and accurately, especially in built-up areas where the view to some GPS satellites is obscured by buildings.

Development of GLONASS began in the Soviet Union in 1976. Beginning on 12 October 1982, numerous rocket launches added satellites to the system until the constellation was completed in 1995. After a decline in capacity during the late 1990s, in 2001, under Vladimir Putin's presidency, the restoration of the system was made a top government priority and funding was substantially increased.

GLONASS is the most expensive program of theRussian Federal Space Agency, consuming a third of its budget in 2010.

By 2010, GLONASS had

achieved 100% coverage

of Russia's territory and

in October 2011, the full

Orbital constellation of 24

satellites was restored,

enabling full global coverage.

The GLONASS satellites'

designs Have undergone several upgrades, with the latest version being GLONASS-K.

INCEPTION and DESIGN

The first satellite-based

radio navigation system

developed in the Soviet

Union was Tsiklon, which

had the purpose of

providing ballistic missile

submarines a method for accurate positioning.

Thirty One (31) Tsiklon satellites were launched between 1967 and 1978.

The main problem with the system was that, although highly accurate for stationary or slow-moving ships, it required several hours of observation by the receiving station to fix a position, making it unusable for many navigation purposes and for the guidance of the new generation of ballistic missiles. In 1968–1969, a new navigation system, which would support not only the navy, but also the air, land and space forces, was conceived. Formal requirements were completed in 1970; in 1976, the government made a decision to launch development of the "Unified Space Navigation System GLONASS".

The task of designing GLONASS was given to a group of young specialists at NPO PM in the city of Krasnoyarsk-26 (today called Zheleznogorsk). Under the leadership of Vladimir Cheremisin, they developed different proposals, from which the institute's director GrigoryChernyavsky selected the final one. The work was completed in the late 1970s; the system would consist of 24 satellites operating at an altitude of 20,000 km in medium circular orbit. It would be able to promptly fix the receiving station's position based on signals from 4 satellites, and also reveal the object's speed and direction.

The satellites would be launched 3 at a time on the heavy-lift Proton rocket. Due to the large number of satellites needed for the program, NPO PM delegated the manufacturing of the satellites to PO Polyot in Omsk, which had better production capabilities.

Originally, GLONASS was designed to have an accuracy of 65 m, but in reality it had an accuracy of 20 m in the civilian signal and 10 m in the militarysignal.[6] The first generation GLONASS satellites were 7.8 m tall, had a width of 7.2 m, measured across their solar panels, and a mass of 1,260 kg.

Achieving Full Orbital Constellation

In the early 1980s, NPO PM received the first prototype satellites from PO Polyot for ground tests. Many of the produced parts were of low quality and NPO PM engineers had to perform substantial redesigning, leading to a delay.

On 12 October 1982, three satellites, designated Kosmos-1413, Kosmos-1414, and Kosmos-1415 were launched aboard a Proton rocket. As only one GLONASS satellite was ready in time for the launch instead of the expected three, it was decided to launch it along with two mock-ups. The American media reported the event as a launch of one satellite and "two secret objects.

" For a long time, the Americans could not find out the nature of those "objects". The Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS) covered the launch, describing GLONASS as a system "created to determine positioning of civil aviation aircraft, navy transport and fishing-boats of the Soviet Union".

From 1982 through April 1991, the Soviet Union successfully launched a total of 43 GLONASS-related satellites plus five test satellites.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, twelve functional GLONASS satellites in two planes were operational; enough to allow limited usage of the system (to cover the entire territory of the country, 18 satellites would have been necessary.)

The Russian Federation took over control of the constellation and continued it development. In 1993, the system, now consisting of 12 satellites, was formally declared operational and in December 1995, the constellation was finally brought to its optimal status of 24 operational satellites.

This brought the precision of GLONASS on-par with the American GPS system, which had achieved full operational capability а year earlier.

Economic Crisis And Fall Into DisrepairSince the first generation satellites operated for 3 years

each, to keep the system at full capacity, two launches per year would have been necessary to maintain the full network of 24 satellites.

However, in the financially difficult period of 1989–1999, the space program's funding was cut by 80% and Russiaconsequently found itself unable to afford this launch rate. After the full complement was achieved in December 1995, there were no further launches until December 1999. As a result, the constellation reached its lowest point of just 6 operational satellites in 2001.

As a prelude to demilitarisation, responsibility ofthe program was transferred from the Ministry of Defence to Russia's civilian space agency Roscosmos.

Renewed Efforts and Modernization

Although the GLONASS constellation has reached global coverage, its commercialisation, especially development of the user segment, has been lacking compared to the American GPS system.

For example, the first commercial Russian-madeGLONASS navigation device for cars, Glospace SGK-70, was introduced in 2007, but it was much bigger and costlier thansimilar GPS receivers.

In late 2010, there were only a handful of GLONASS receivers on the market, and few of them were meant for ordinary consumers. To improve the situation, the Russian government has been actively promoting GLONASS for civilian use.

Third GenerationGLONASS-K is a substantial improvement of the previous generation: it is the first unpressurised GLONASS satellite with a much reduced mass (750 kg versus 1,450 kg of GLONASS-M). It has an operational lifetime of 10 years, compared to the 7-year lifetime of the second generation GLONASS-M. It will transmit more navigation signals to improve the system's accuracy, including new CDMA signals in the L3 and L5 bands which will usemodulation similar to modernized GPS, Galileo and Compass.

The new satellite's advanced equipment—made solely from Russian components—will allow the doubling of GLONASS' accuracy. As with the previoussatellites, these are 3-axis stabilized, nadir pointing with dual solar arrays.

The first GLONASS-K satellite was successfully launched on 26 February 2011.

GLONASS BellyflopA Russian Proton-M rocket carrying three GLONASS navigation satellitescrashed soon after liftoff on July 2 from Kazakhstan’s Baikonurcosmodrome. About 10 seconds after takeoff at 02:38 UTC, the rocket swerved, began tocorrect, but then veered in the opposite direction. It then flew horizontally and started to come apart with its engines in full thrust. Making an arc in the air, the rocket plummeted to Earth and exploded on impact close to another launch pad used for Proton commercial launches.

Despite the loss, GLONASS still has a full operating constellation of 24 satellites. The crash was broadcast live across Russia. Fears of a possible toxic fuel leak immediately surfaced following the incident, but no such leak has been confirmed.

The rocket was initially carrying more than 600 tons of toxic propellants. No casualties or damage to surroundings structures or the town of Baikonur have been reported.

The crashed Proton-M rocket employed a DM-03 booster, which was being used for the first time since December 2010, when another Proton-M rocket with the same booster failed to deliver another three GLONASS satellites into orbit, crashing into the Pacific Ocean 1,500 kilometers from Honolulu.

A Russian government investigation revealed that at least “three of six angular rate sensors [on the booster stage] were installed incorrectly,” to be specific, upside-down.

Examination of the wreckage discovered traces of forced, incorrect installation on three sensors. Assembly-line testing at the factory failed to detect the faulty installation.

This rendered the system completely unusable to all worldwide GLONASS receivers. Full service was subsequently restored. “Bad ephemerides were uploaded to satellites.

Those bad ephemerides became active at 1:00 a.m. Moscow time,” reported one knowledgeable source.

GLONASS navigation messages contain, as they do for every GNSS in orbit, ephemeris data used to calculate the position of each satellite in orbit, and information about the time and status of the entire satellite constellation (almanac); user receivers on the ground processed this data to compute their precise position.

Trouble Chronolog.

The constellation suffered a second failure two weeks later. On April 14, eight GLONASS satellites were simultaneously set unhealthy

for about half an hour, meaning that most GLONASS or multi-constellation receivers would have ignored those satellites in positioning computations.

In addition, one other satellite in the fleet was out of commission undergoing maintenance. This might have left too few healthy satellites to compute GLONASS-only receiver positions in some locations.

Advantages and Disadvantages Global Positioning System

GPS stands for global positioning system which was created by US department of defense for the navigation of military in any part of world under circumstances.

But with the time, this system is now being used for many other purposes and GPS system has proved to be a revolutionary technology in today's world.

There are several advantages of GPS at present and

in contrast to that there are some disadvantages also. Some of them are:

Advantages of GPS:• GPS is extremely easy to navigate as it tells you to the direction for each

turns you take or you have to take to reach to your destination.• GPS works in all weather so you need not to worry of the climate as in

other navigating devices.• The GPS costs you very low in comparison other navigation systems.• The most attractive feature of this system is its 100% coverage on the

planet.• It also helps you to search the nearby restaurants, hotels and gas stations

and is very useful for a new place.• Due to its low cost, it is very easy to integrate into other technologies like

cell phone.• The system is updated regularly by the US government and hence is very

advance.• This is the best navigating system in water as in larger water bodies we are

often misled due to lack of proper directions.

Disadvantages of Global Positioning System

• Sometimes the GPS may fail due to certain reasons and in that case you need to carry a backup map and directions.

• If you are using GPS on a battery operated device, there may be a battery failure and you may need a external power supply which is not always possible.

• Sometimes the GPS signals are not accurate due to some obstacles to the signals such as buildings, trees and sometimes by extreme atmospheric conditions such as geomagnetic storms.

WHAT IS GALILEO? (Week 10)

Galileo is Europe’s own global navigation satellite system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning service under civilian control.

It is inter-operable with GPS and Glonass, the US and Russian global satellite navigation systems.

By offering dual

frequencies as

standard, Galileo

is set to deliver

real-time positioning

accuracy down to

the metre range.

It will guarantee availability of the service under all but the most extreme circumstances and will inform users within seconds of any satellite failure, making it suitable for safety-critical applications such as guiding cars, running trains and landing aircraft.

On 21 October 2011 came the first two of four operational satellites designed to validate the Galileo concept in both space and on Earth.

Two more followed on 12 October 2012. This In-Orbit Validation (IOV) phase is now being followed by additional satellite launches to reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) around mid-decade.

Galileo services are designed with withquality and integrity guarantees – this marks the key difference of this first complete civil positioning system from the military systems that have come

before.

The fully deployed Galileo system consists of 30 satellites (27 operational + 3 active spares),positioned in three circular Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) planes at 23 222 km altitude above the Earth, and at an inclination of the orbital planes of 56 degrees to the equator.

Once the IOC phase is reached, The Open Service, Search and Rescue and Public Regulated Service will be available with initial performances. Then as the constellation is built-up beyond that, new services will be tested and made available to reach Full Operational Capability (FOC).

Once this is achieved, the Galileo navigation signals will provide good coverage even at latitudes up to75 degrees north, which corresponds to Norway's North Cape - the most northerly tip of Europe – and beyond.

The large number of satellites together with the carefully-optimised constellation design, plus

the availability of the three active spare satellites, will ensure that the loss of one satellite should

have no discernible effect on the user.

Two Galileo Control Centres (GCCs) have been implemented on European ground to provide for thecontrol of the satellites and to perform the navigation mission management. The data provided by a global network of Galileo Sensor Stations (GSSs) are sent to the Galileo Control Centres through a redundant communications network.

The GCCs use the data from the Sensor Stations to compute the integrity information and to synchronise the time signal of all satellites with the ground station clocks.The exchange of the data between the Control Centresand the satellites is performed through up-link stations.

(Week 11)As a further feature, Galileo is providing a global

Search and Rescue (SAR) function, based on theoperational Cospas-Sarsat system. Satellites are therefore equipped with a transponder, which is able to transfer the distress signals from the user transmitters to regional rescue co-ordination centres, which will then initiate the rescue operation.

At the same time, the system will send a response signal to the user, informing him that his situation has been detected and that help is on the way. This latter feature is new and is considered a major upgrade compared to the existing system, which does not provide user feedback.

Experimental satellites GIOVE-A and GIOVE-B were launched in 2005 and 2008 respectively, serving to test critical Galileo technologies, while also the securing of the Galileo frequencies within the International Telecommunications Union.

Over the course of the test period, scientific instruments also measured various aspects of the space environment around the orbital plane, in particular the level of radiation, which is greater than in low Earth or geostationary orbits.

The four operational Galileo satellites launched in 2011 and 2012 built upon this effort to become the operational nucleus of the full Galileo constellation.

• OPERATIONS • This work package concerns the provision of

Operations services of the Galileo system in the timeframe of the FOC deployment phase.

• It comprises the operations of all deployed spacecraftsin the Galileo constellation, including launch and early operations, in orbit tests, routine operations, contingency recovery operations, orbit correction, Operations of the Ground control and ground mission segments facility both in the Galileo Control Centresand in the remote sites, and the management of telecommunication network.

• The contract with Spaceopal, company created by DLR (DE) and Telespazio (IT) was signed on 25 October 2010.

• An investigation into the recent failed Soyuz launch of the EU's Galileo• satellites has found that the Russian Fregat upper stage fired correctly, but• its software was programmed for the wrong orbit. From the article: "The• failure of the European Union’s Galileo satellites to reach their intended• orbital position was likely caused by software errors in the Fregat-MT

An investigation into the recent failed Soyuz launch of the EU's Galileo satellites has found that the Russian Fregat upper stage fired correctly, but its software was programmed for the wrong orbit.

From the article: "The failure of the European Union’s Galileo satellites to reach their intended orbital position was likely caused by software errors in the Fregat-MT rocket’s upper-stage, Russian newspaper Izvestia reported Thursday.

'The nonstandard operation of the integrated management system was likely caused by an error in the embedded software. As a result, the upper stage received an incorrect flight assignment, and, operating in full accordance with the embedded software, it has delivered the units to the wrong destination,' an unnamed source from Russian space Agency Roscosmos was quoted as saying by the newspaper."

Limits of Compatibility: Combining Galileo PRSand GPS M-Code

Although Galileo operates wholly under civil control, it does include encrypted signals, including those of the Public Regulated Service or PRS, which are broadcast near the new GPS military M-code signals at the L1 frequency. Galileo’s design calls for PRS use by public safety organizations such as police and fire departments and customs agencies.

Because of its design, PRS could also be used for military applications; however, the European Union (EU) has not approved such use and several EU members have gone onrecord opposing it. Nonetheless, in light of a continuing interest in combined use of M-code and PRS, this article examines some of the technical issues surrounding the subject.

An agreement signed in June 2004 between the European Union and the United States regarding the promotion, provision, and common use of GPS and Galileo has opened a new world of possibilities in satellite navigation.

Simulation studies of the combined use of Galileo and GPS civil signals have demonstrated that users may expect a clear enhancement of performance in terms of positioning accuracy and navigation solution.

The compatibility and interoperability that the Galileo signal structure will offer with respect to GPS is especially relevant in the E2-L1-E1 band.

After lengthy negotiations, the United States and the EU agreed on the design of the Open Service (OS) signals to be transmitted by Galileo and the future GPS on L1. If we take amore detailed look into the different waveforms, however, we see that not only the Galileo Open Service and the GPS C/A code have a common center frequency on L1 but also theGalileo Public Regulated Service (PRS) and the GPS military M-code.

Because common center frequencies are certainly the main prerequisite for interoperability, the combined processing of PRS and military signals from Galileo and GPS raises the possibility of offering a better positioning and navigation solution.

One major point during the negotiations was the necessary coexistence of the Galileo Public Regulated Service (PRS) and Open Service (OS) with the GPS C/A and M-code, in particular on L1 where the necessary separation between the different services played an outstanding role.

Thus, the final frequency and signal structure resulted also in the same L1 center frequency for the Galileo PRS and GPS M-code.Our previous work evaluated the accuracy of a combined Galileo OS and GPS C/A code service. This article will present the positioning accuracy of a combined Galileo PRS and GPS M-code service from a purely technical point-of-view.

No doubt that military and political considerations and decisions would be necessary to realize such a combined servicein reality. However, this paper aims to show not only a benefit to use of the interoperability between

From a political and military point of view, the question of a combined Galileo PRS and GPS M-code service has clearly not been addressed yet and probably it will require time consuming and lengthy discussions in the future, if the negotiations ever take place.

Nonetheless, from a purely technical point of view it makes sense to evaluate the pros and cons as well as the performance that such a service could offer some day, and the time is certainly right for doing that now.

Therefore, this article first evaluates the performance of the two single services separately using identical assumptions. In order to do so, a refined methodology is proposed to estimate the different sources of error that contribute to the User Equivalent Range Error(UERE), particularly the ranging error caused by reflected signals or multipath.

Afterwards the same analysis is carried out for a combined processing of Galileo PRS and GPS M-Code signals for a joint position, velocity, and time solution.

Multipath Error

Multipath error is the most important unavoidable source of error contributing to the

UERE, because it is very difficult to model. As we saw, the ionospheric error indeed presents

worse values in a general case, but an appropriate receiver would be able to eliminate it or at least reduce its contribution with corrections coming from SBAS or A-GPS.

IBS (Integrated Bridge System)1. Navigation SystemGeneralThe total Navigation System is based on «IBS» concept (Integrated Bridge System)The navigation system will adopt and follow the latest international standards for Navigation Systems, defined by IMO and IEC.Standards are followed for; Navigation radars, ECDIS, Speed log, Echo sounder, DGPD/GPS,AIS, DPS and Autopilot/Track pilot system, Multiloading Online Control Stability System.

The main Navigation sensors/systems:

- Dual Navigation ARPA Radar system (S and X-band)- LPI Radar Sensor- Fully duplicated ECDIS system with the charts server- Fiber-optic gyro system- Fully duplicated INS (Inertial Navigation System)- Dual action speed log (water track speed and bottom track speed)- Passive speed log (magnetic log or pressure log)- Two independent satellite based position equipment (DGPS-GPS/GLONASS;different manufacturers)- Satellite independent positioning system or Laser based positioning system

- Automatic Identification System AIS

- Track-pilot system (functions as a transfer Autopilot)

- Meteorological instruments

- Xenon and Halogen search lights

- Whistle

- Navigation and signal lights

- Data recorder and play-back facility for Navigation Information- Navigation Information Display

- Navigation Data servers for transferring the information to IMCS C2 and ANCS-System

- Time server unit

- Dynamic Positioning System (DP-System)

• Wheel house consoles are part of the Navigation System supply.• Tentative wheel house arrangement is illustrated in Appendix 1.

* Consoles will also house necessary additional components for IMCS C2 and ANCS-System,propulsion/steering system and for machinery monitoring, required to be operated on bridge.* All displays in the wheel house are high contrast TFT-type displays. Display size and modes areaccording to requirements.

1.2 Navigation System integration with other ship’s systems.

Following figure illustrates the navigation System integration to other ship’s systems.

Navigation System to Engine Monitoring System

- Display of Engine and propulsion Information to bridge operators

- Transfer of navigation information to Engine monitoring system

Navigation System to IMCS C2 and AWW-System

- Transfer of Navigation Information data to IMCS C2 and AWW-System

- Transfer of ARPA Tracked targets to IMCS C2 and AWW-System

- Transfer of Route Information from NAV-System to IMCS C2 -System

- Transfer of Route Information from IMCS C2 -System to NAV-System

- Transfer of high speed hull motion information to IMCS C2 and AWW-System

Navigation System to Dynamic position system

- Transfer of Navigation Information data to DP-System

- Transfer of Route information between NAV-System and DP-System

Dynamic position system to IMCS C2 -System

- Transfer of route and command information from IMCS C2 -System to DP-System

Dynamic position system and Propulsion Control system

- Transfer of Propulsion commands and feed-backs from DP-System to Propulsion control system

• Navigation System and Dynamic position system to Chart Server

• Enquires and its Parameters of specified Area in a specified Scale using specified Palette.

- Building of Chart of specified Area in a specified Scale using specified Palette.

Charts’s Contents is limited by a list of Chart Layers.

- Getting of Chart Object under a specified small area.

- Getting of Alarms for a specified Area.

Chart Server to Navigation System and Dynamic position system

Results of Enquires

- Electronic Chart of specified Area.

- List of Chart Objects.

- List of Alarms.

2. Navigation System componentsFollowing section contains main navigation equipment and their standard and specialrequirements2.1 Dual Navigation ARPA Radar system (S and X-band)Navigation Radar System is composed of following units:- S-Band 30 kW down mast transceiver with 12’ antenna unit- X-Band 25 kW down mast transceiver with 9’ antenna unit- Two fully independent ARPA radar displays with built-in radar inter switching unit- Radars are operated from UPS power source (3phase 230VAC)- ARPA displays are 23.1’’ TFT screens, conforming to the standards for IMO ARPA systems

ARPA Radar system includes following special features:- Transfer of tracked ARPA targets to ECDIS- Transfer of user created synthetic map information from ECDIS to ARPA displays- Presentation of route information and track information from ECDIS- Presentation of curved EBL, initiated from ECDIS/Track steering system- Transfer of Radar Raw image to IMCS C2 and AWW-System- Transfer of Tracked Targets to IMCS C2 and AWW-System, via Navigation Data Server units- Integration of ARPA displays to LPI-radar, control of LPI radar and display of LPI radar videoinformation on ARPA display- Radar transmission blanking output

2.2 LPI Radar Sensor and Processor

LPI radar can be proposed as option, but the final specifications for the performance standardsaredefined at later stage.LPI radar could be fully integrated to ARPA radar system

2.3 Fully duplicated Chart Server- The world-wide database of Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC) for all available standard scales. Weekly updates.- Source data in S57 standard, V3.1 version or more recent.- Display of all cartographic components in accordance with S52.- Mercator projection with WGS-84 datum or: -Transverse Mercator- UTM (Gauss-Krьger)- Polar; - Radar; - Cylindrical- Orthographic; - Stereographic; - Gnomonic- Base, Standard, Other Display as specified in IEC61174.- More detailed information layers in accordance with Viewing Groups specified in S57.- All ECDIS Palettes: DAY-BRIGHT, DAY-WHITEBACK, DAY-BLACKBACK, DUSK, NIGHT.- Paper chart and Simplified chart symbols.

Basic queries:- Building of a standard chart for a specifiedArea,Scale,Projection,Set of layers,Shallow, Safety and Deep Contours,Palette.- Building of hierarchical objects tree under the requested area. This gets information about allobjects on the Chart.- Alarm selection. Finding of Alarms, e.g.:Crossing of Safety Contour, Cautionary and special AreasApproaching to an Obstruction

Additional functions:

- Displaying and use of Additionally Military Layers AML in accordance with STANAG-7170 andSTANAG-4564 standards.- Extracting and export of digital information about Objects from Electronic Navigational Charts and AML.- Receiving, Converting and Displaying of Sea Ice Charts produced by National Ice Center or other organization. Sea Ice Charts have been displayed as an additional chart layer- Navigational Calculator allows to recalculate coordinates between any 2 Ellipsoids in accordance with S60 standard.- Use of DEM (Data Elevation Model) Databases to get information about height of any point on the Earth.

2.4 Fully duplicated ECDIS system

Two fully independent ECDIS are included in the NAV-SYSTEM complying with following

standards:

- IMO resolution A.817(19), performance standard for ECDIS

- IEC61174, Operation and performance, method of testing

- IEC60945, EMC/Environment/General requirements

Following main functions are included:- Display of vector charts (IHO/S57 edition3) or Raster charts (ARCS)- Presentation of Additional Military Layers (AML)- ECDIS Computers and displays are supplied from UPS power source- Two ECDIS computers are working in harmonised mode, allowing automatic update of databased in both ECDIS computers- Continuous monitoring of ship position through multi-sensor Kalman filter processing using;GPS, DGPS SDME (through the water or ground tracking speed log), gyro compasses and radarecho reference

- Route planning and monitoring- Grounding warning and safe depth contours- Superimposing the radar raw video on the electronic chart- Target vectors and data from the navigation ARPA tracked targets- Onboard generated safety maps, routes and areas which can be overlaid also on ARPA screens- Area dependent and user defined notebook, which will inform user automatically when the shipreaches the programmed area- Built-in voyage data logging feature, as required by ECDIS performance standard- Integration of Automatic Identification System (AIS) in order to display other targets (carryingAIS) on ECDIS screen. Read out of detailed ship information supplied by AIS

ECDIS will accommodate a number of sensors to be connected, with appropriate international

standards (IEC-61162-1)

Additional features for mine searching operation:

- Mine searching plans initiated in IMCS C2-SYSTEM, are transferred to ECIDS system

- Route plans, which are initiated in ECDIS, are transferred to IMCS C2 and AWW-System

2.5

2.5 Fiber-optic gyro system (Navigation Gyro System)Navigation Gyro compass system includes following main units:- LFK95 Fiber-optic gyro compass- Interface and power supply unit (IPSU)- Navigation Gyro compass control panel- Analog repeaters in steering gear room- Digital repeaters in wheel house- Transmitting Magnetic compass- Switch over unit and facilities to select the System Gyro Compass as the main sourcefor heading information to all navigation sensors (ARPA displays, ECDIS, Track pilot etc.)

Fiber-optic gyro compass supplies the following information to navigation system:- Ship’s heading- Ship’s rate Of Turn- Ship’s Roll and Pitch information- The ships heading information is available in analog format (Stepper output) and in serialformat (IEC61162). The serial format is available both in standard 4800b/s and on higher serialtransmission rates (up to 38.400b/s)Navigation Gyro information is available in Ethernet Data format via Navigation Data Servers

Fiber-optic gyro compass supplies the following information to navigation system:- Ship’s heading- Ship’s rate Of Turn- Ship’s Roll and Pitch information- The ships heading information is available in analog format (Stepper output) and in serialformat (IEC61162). The serial format is available both in standard 4800b/s and on higher serialtransmission rates (up to 38.400b/s)Navigation Gyro information is available in Ethernet Data format via Navigation Data Servers

Following information is available in INS:

- Ship’s heading

- Ship’s Rate Of Turn

- Ship’s Roll and Pitch Information

- Body velocities; X, Y and Z

- Accelerations; X, Y and Z

Switch Over Unit (SOU) supplies the gyro information on 64Hz and on 512Hz up date rate

and on HDLC protocol.

Sensors, which require fast update rate information, are connected directly to INS.

Normal navigation systems (i.e. ARPA radars) can not scope with HDLC protocols and highspeed data streams, therefore the information is transformed to a commonly used (in navigationsystems) data formats.The MIPSU is included in order to have System Gyro information available also for NavigationSystems/sensorsSystem Gyro information is available in Ethernet Data format via Navigation Data Servers.Following information is also available to DP-System- Ship’s heading- Ship’s Rate Of Turn- Ship’s Roll and Pitch Information- Body velocities; X, Y and Z- Accelerations; X, Y and Z

2.7 Dual action speed log (water track speed and bottom track speed)Dual Action speed log system is included in the Navigation system.The system supplies both Water Track and Bottom Track information to Navigation systemsensors.Water track speed is used by ARPA, radars according to IMO rules.The system has two-function log unit, working both on bottom track principle and on watertrack.System includes required amount of interfaces to navigation systems, and necessary amountof speed repeaters, distributed in wheel house and engine control room.Water track speed log has the measuring frequency of 4Mhz and the bottom track is workingon 150KHz frequency.

Bottom track speed log can be switched off at any time, in order to stop the transmissionon 150KHz frequency.The speed log system includes the following main units:- Speed log electronic unit- Speed log distribution unit- Transducer unit with gate valve- Four digital repeaters- Speed log simulation unit (manual speed input facility)- 200p/NM outputs to ARPA radars and Autopilot- IEC61162-1 serial format outputs to ECDIS, Navigation Data Servers etc.Speed log information is distributed to IMCS C2 and AWW-System via Navigation Data Servers.Ship’s speed information to DP-System is also provided

2.8 Echo sounderNavigation echo sounder function is included in the navigation system, as a part of standardequipment for navigation.Navigation echo sounder has the following units and features:- Graphical display, which is also used as «play-back» media for depth history.- Transducer- IEC61162-1 outputs to other Navigation systemsEcho sounder information is distributed to IMCS C2 and AWW-System via Navigation DataServers.

2.9 Two independent satellite based position equipment (DGPS - GPS/GLONASS)Two independent satellite based (DGPS - GPS/GLONASS) receivers are included in theNavigation System.Following special features are included:- Possibility to receive correction signals from external differential correction source (RTCM- 104format)Position information to IMCS C2 and AWW-System is transferred via Navigation Data Servers.Position information output to DP-System is also provided.

2.10 Satellite independent positioning system or Laser based positioning system

Additional position reference system, independent to satellite based system, is included.

The position system is based either on Radio Navigational or on Laser principle.

The position information from satellite independent system is used in Navigation system, IMCS

C2 and AWW-System and in DP-System.

2.11 Automatic Identification System AIS

Automatic Identification system (AIS) is included.

Special features:

- Own ship transmission can be suppressed on operator’s request

- AIS targets are transferred to ECDIS and IMCS C2 and AWW

2.12 Track-pilot system (functions as a transfer Autopilot)

For normal navigation and ship’s transfer function, a standard Autopilot function (also called

Trackpilot) is included into the DP-System.

Autopilot/Trackpilot has two operation modes:

- Normal Autopilot function is used when the setting of course, turns etc. are initiated manually

- The Trackpilot function is enabled when the Autopilot receives course and track information

from ECDIS (pre planned route)

Main functions of the Autopilot/Trackpilot are:- Speed Adaptive course keeping function- Radius controlled turns- Pre programmed course changes- Selection of ship’s loading conditions- Selection of ship’s steering accuracy (Economy, Medium, Precise)- Connection to heading reference system and Speed log- Off course monitoring and respective alarm- Proportional rudder order or «bang-bang» rudder order available- Serial data connection to ECDIS (External track steering function)- Track steering operation, when assisted by ECDIS

2.13 Meteorological instruments

Following meteorological instruments are included and integrated in Navigation System:

- Wind speed and direction

- Outside air temperature

- Outside air pressure

- Outside air humidity

The meteorological Information is displayed in wheel house by means of a Conning display and

the information is also transferred to DP-System and IMCS C2 And AWW-System

2.14 Xenon and Halogen search lights

One 2000W Halogen type search light with remote controlled operation is included.

One 2000W Xenon type search light with remote controlled operation is included.

2.15 Whistle

Whistle system according to rules is provided

2.16 Navigation and signal lights

Navigation and signal lights according to rules are provided

2.17 Data recorder and play-back facility for Navigation InformationNavigation Data Recorder (recordings from Navigation Data Network) is included.Navigational data is stored for at least 100days, and can be recalled and analysed by usingexternal lap-top computer.It shall be possible to record data from all sensors attached to navigation system.Following information is recorded, at least in one Hertz frequency:- Ship’s heading- Ship’s speed- Time and data- Ship’s position- Propulsion orders- Depth

2.18 Navigation Information Display (i.e. Conning Display)«Conning» Display, for the presentation of information from Navigation sensors and Propulsion devices, is included.Conning display presentation includes the following information (as minimum):- Ship’s heading (from selected System Gyro source)- Ship’s heading from Navigation Gyro- Rate of Turn; - Roll and Pitch; - Ship’s speed- Depth and set depth alarm limit- Meteorological information- Route Information from ECDIS- Propulsion information (RPM)- Rudder angle orders and feed-back- Bow thruster orders and feed-back- Track-pilot status; - - Steering mode

2.19 Navigation Data Servers for transfer of Navigation data informationto IMCS C2- system and AWWThe main purpose of Navigation Data Server is to supply all navigation related information toIMCS C2-System and AWW.Navigation Data Servers are duplicated, forming a fully redundant source for Navigationinformation to IMCS C2 and AWW-System.The protocol between the Navigation Data Server and IMCS C2 and AWW- System is based onFinnish Navy SQ2000 data format.Navigation data is transferred to IMCS C2 and AWW-System on Ethernet. Ethernet usesbroadcast principle and the data is transmitted 10 times / second.

At least the following information is transferred to IMCS C2 and AWW-System:- Ship’s heading (from selected System Gyro source)- Ship’s heading from Navigation Gyro- Rate of Turn- Roll and Pitch- Ship’s body velocities- Ship’s speed- Direct position information from Position Devices- Depth and set depth alarm limit- Meteorological information- ARPA Display tracked targets

2.20 Time server unit

Central Time server unit, distributing the time for Navigation-, IMCS C2- and AWW-systems, is

included.

The system includes NTP-Server functions as well as ASCII-based time stamp output to

Navigation Data servers and ARPA displays.

2.21 Dynamic Positioning System (DP-System)The Dynamic Positioning system (DP-System) is used to control the ship propulsion componentsautomatically in different needs and in different operation modes.DP-System integrates following sensors and equipment:- Positioning systems- Heading sensors- Speed log- Main propulsion devices- Bow thrusters- Wind-sensor- Others, if needed

DP-System integrates following operational functions:- Sailing plan or direction orders, which should be followed by DP-System- Move on planned track (slow speed or high speed tracking)- Stay at given position (Dynamic Positioning)- Keep heading- Rotate around a point (fore-ship, center-ship, aft-ship or a point outside of ship)- Translate ship position (fore, aft, side or any resultant combination)DP-System receives track information either from IMCS C2-System or from Navigation SystemDP-System tracks (either from navigation system or IMCS C2-System) are displayed in ECDISworkstations.DP-Controls are located both in CIC and on bridge.

3 Wheel house consolesAll wheel house consoles and overhead panels are included in the Navigation System delivery.

Console configuration is tentatively described in Appendix 1.

Recommendation for the Application of SOLAS

Regulation V/15

Bridge Design, Equipment Arrangement and

Procedures (BDEAP)

Foreword

This Recommendation sets forth a set of guidelines for determining compliance with the principles and aims of SOLAS regulation V/15 relating to bridge design, design and arrangement of navigational systems and equipment and bridge procedures when applying the requirements of SOLAS regulations V/19, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 at the time of delivery of the new building.

SOLAS V Reg. 22

Navigation Bridge

Visibility

Table B 5.8 shown

for overview of

maximum allowed

blind sectors and

minimum clear

sectors.

IEC TECHNICAL

COMMITTEE 80

MARITIME NAVIGATION

AND

RADIO

COMMUNICATION

EQUIPMENT

AND

SYSTEMS

IEC TECHNICAL

COMMITTEE 80

MARITIME NAVIGATION

AND

RADIO

COMMUNICATION

EQUIPMENT

AND

SYSTEMS

TEC IEC

The IEC, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, is the world’s leading organization that prepares and publishesInternational Standards for all electrical, Electronic and related technologies – collectively known as “electrotechnology”. IEC standards cover a vast range of technologies from power generation, transmission and distribution to home appliances and office equipment, semiconductors, fibre optics, batteries, flat panel displays and solar energy, to mention just a few. Wherever you findelectricity and electronics, you find the IEC supporting safety and performance, the environment, electrical energy efficiency and renewable energies.

The IEC also administers international conformity assessment schemes in the areas of electrical equipment testing and certification (IECEE), quality of electronic components, materials and processes (IECQ) and certification of electrical equipment operated in explosive atmospheres (IECEx).

The IEC has served the world’s electrical industry since1906, developing International Standards to promote quality,safety, performance, reproducibility and environmentalcompatibility of materials, products and systems.

The IEC family, which now comprises more than160 countries, includes all the world’s major trading nations.This membership collectively represents about 85 % ofthe world’s population and 95 % of the world’s electricalgenerating capacity.

One of the fundamental trends in the maritime industry over the past decades has been an increasing reliance on electrical and electronic technologies for navigating and communicating.

These technologies have moved well out of the mechanical era and fully into the electronic and information age.

This is particularly true for equipment on ocean-going cargo and passenger vessels and for industrial fishing fleets but now even applies to the smallest of vessels.

Created in 1980, IEC Technical Committee 80 produces operational and performance requirements together with test methods for maritime navigation and Radio communication equipment and systems.

The committee provides industry with standards that are also accepted by governments as suitable for type approval where this is required by the International

Maritime Organization’s SOLAS Convention.

TC 80 does this by ensuring that it has

representatives from industry, users, governments and test certification bodies.

There are currently 20 participating national members in the committee and liaisons with all the major international maritime bodies.

The committee provides industry with standards thatare also accepted by governments as suitable for typeapproval where this is required by the InternationalMaritime Organization’s SOLAS Convention.

TC 80 does this by ensuring that it has representatives from industry, users, governments and test certification bodies. There are currently 20 participating national members in the committee and liaisons with all the major internationalmaritime bodies.

The committee work programme is associated with that of the IMO by mirroring the performance standards adopted by IMO in its resolutions, with associated relevant ITU recommendations.

TC 80 standards support IMO resolutions and non-SOLAS and shore applications. Its scope is “to prepare standards for maritime navigation and Radio communication equipment and systems, making use of electrotechnical, electronic, electroacoustic, electro-optical and data processing techniques for use on ships and where appropriate on shore”.

By being represented in both IMO and ITU this technical committee can contribute to the performance and technical content of the resolutions and recommendations.

This is invaluable to industry, in that the performance and technical standards represent the practical state of current and emerging technology.

ORIGINS

• The origins of TC 80 date from the 1970s

When electromechanical instruments started

to be replaced by electronic instruments. In 1978 the IEC set up a working group to propose a possible work programme on “advanced navigational instruments”.

• The preferred approach was what today would be

called “multi-modal” covering land, sea and air applications and the concept envisaged for navigation included related aspects of radio communications.

• Experts from France, Germany, Japan and Norway formed the working group with contributions from:

International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) Comité International Radio-Maritime (CIRM) International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO, now IMO) European Organisation for Civil Aviation Electronics (EUROCAE) International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

The working group identified a need for standards for instruments used on ships and possibly aircraft, noted the complex interrelations between IMCO, EUROCAE and ISO and centres of expertise existing within IEC,

particularly in TC 18 (Electrical installations of ships and of mobile and fixed offshore units) and the International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR).

The new Technical Committee held its first meeting in June 1980 in Stockholm with delegates from China,

France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, UK,

USA and Yugoslavia and observers from TC 18 and

CIRM.

The top priority task identified was standards to

support the carriage requirements of the new SOLAS

1974, particularly automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA).

TC 80 subsequently specialised into the activity of

maritime instruments and has now produced some 48

standards.

General Requirements

When IEC TC 80 was formed there were 20classification societies, together with the InternationalAssociation of Classification Societies, numerousstatutory authorities, regional standards bodies and IMCO – all with different ideas on what the general requirements should be for equipment to be used on ships.

It quickly became clear that general requirements interrelated environmental issues with other issues concerning the design of the equipment, its power supplies, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and safety.

In 1991 the IMO, when discussing the changes which would arise with the introduction of the GMDSS, noted that in future, radio equipment would be installed on the bridge alongside the navigation equipment instead of in a special radio room as hitherto and TC 80 standards subsequently took this into account.

Having attained consensus in IMO for the requirements for equipment used on the bridge of a ship, discussions began with classification societies, with TC 18 and with ISO to align all their general requirements.

This resulted in the third edition of IEC 60945 in 1996 which is the industry standard on this subject. This edition also introduced new requirements for software, reflecting the technological changes taking place in

equipment design.

A fourth edition of IEC 60945 appeared in 2002 which extended the detail of operational tests, particularly for equipment which is operated through software menus, to reflect the importance given by IMO to human factors.

The EMC tests were also extended to contain the increasing problems experienced by the use of ever more electronic equipment on a ship.

The work on general requirements was extended in 2008 by the publication of IEC 62288.

This standard harmonizes the requirements for the presentation of navigation-related information on the bridge of a ship to ensure that all navigational displays adopt a consistent human machine interface philosophy

and implementation.

The standard also provides

standardized symbology and terminology.

INTERFACES

Interest in standard interfaces to enable navigation equipment to communicate developed in the 1970s. During this decade, CIRM took an interest in standardsfor gyrocompasses, the National Marine ElectronicsAssociation (NMEA) focused on the use of LORAN for controlling an auto-pilot and, later, the IMO became involved during the development of the GMDSS.

By the mid-1980s the interface issue looked like it might polarize into two areas: exchange of navigational information and exchange of radiocommunication

information.

TC 80 helped to resolve this potential

problem by developing standards suitable for all

information exchange in the IEC 61162 series which today contains the accepted industry standards.

THE WORK PROGRAMME

IEC TC 80 has produced

standards for all the

equipment which is

required by the Safety

of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

Convention to be carried on the bridge of a ship. This includes the Automatic Identification

System (AIS), the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS), the Voyage Data Recorder, the radio installation and the radar.

Where appropriate, such as in the case of theAutomatic Identification System, TC 80 has alsoproduced standards for equipment intended for use onsmall vessels which has to interwork with the SOLASequipment and also for supporting shore-basedequipment.

Current interest in IMO is on reducing the workload ofthe bridge team through better integrated navigation systems and displays and reducing the workload of handling alarms deriving from malfunctions of equipment and navigational warnings.

TC 80 is developing standards for Integrated NavigationSystems and Bridge Alarm Management to assist in these areas.

IMO

The International Maritime Organization, founded in 1948, is a specialized agency of the United Nations with headquarters in London and known until 1982 as the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO).

It is a technical organization consisting of member states which has drafted some 40 Conventions and 800 supporting Resolutions.

CIRM

The Comité International Radio-Maritime, or International Maritime Radio Committee, promotes use of electronic technology for shipping and the safety of lifeat sea, and fosters relations between all organizationsconcerned with electronic aids to marine navigationand marine radiocommunications.

CIRM was accorded consultative status by IMCO in 1961.

It is also a Sector Member of the ITU, and is aLiaison Member both of the ISO and of the IEC.

CIRM provides the Secretary of TC 80 under anagreement with the British Standards Institution.

ISO

At ISO, the International Organization forStandardization, TC 8 deals with ships and marinetechnology and has subcommittee SC 5 (Navigationand ship operation) which has a liaison with IEC TC 80.ISO TC 8 standards which complement the work ofIEC TC 80, or have been produced jointly, include thefollowing:• Magnetic compass (25862)• Ship’s bridge layout (8468)• Gyro-compass (8728, 16328)• Radar reflector (8729)

• Heading controller (11674, 16329)• Night vision (16273)• Searchlight (17884)• Programmable electronic systems (17894)• ECS database (19379)• Transmitting heading devices (22090)• Rate of turn indicator (20672)• Rudder indicator (20673)• Propeller indicator (22554, 22555)• Signal lamp (25861) and• Wind vane (10596)

ABBREVIATIONSAIS Automatic Identification SystemsCCIR International Radio Consultative Committee (now part of ITU-R)CIRM International Maritime Radio CommitteeCISPR International Special Committee on Radio InterferenceECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information SystemECS Electronic Chart SystemEMC Electromagnetic CompatibilityGMDSS Global Maritime Distress and Safety SystemIALA International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse

AuthoritiesIMO International Maritime Organization (formerly IMCO Inter-GovernmentalMaritime Consultative Organization)ISO International Organization for StandardizationITU International Telecommunication UnionLORAN Long Range Radio-Navigation SystemNMEA National Marine Electronics AssociationSOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at SeaRTCM Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services

• WEEK 12: ELEMENTS OF ECDIS

During the last two decades there has been a constant flow of new carriage requirements for Bridge equipment; in most cases giving a burden for ship owners and crew.

ECDIS can reverse this situation if it’s properly installed, optimized for a particular vessel and manned by a well-trained crew.

It can bring added value to a ship owner as well as for a crew, in addition to enhanced safety and fulfilling the ECDIS Carriage Requirement.

Manufacturer’s combined expertise with customer experience and lessons learned over more than 10 years of ECDIS installation and use.

This is a guide that gives some hints and ideas to show how ECDIS can optimize our day to day operations, saving time and money.

Proper transition to ECDIS takes time. So do as many ship owners have already done – get started now shall benefit navigators from ECDIS installation on board ship.

To be able to help everyone to manage any challenges along the way, as we seafarers move on.

• We all know what ECDIS stands for: Electronic Chart Display and Information System.

• But it can be much more, there are many ECDIS system from various perspective.

FFICIENT ROUTE and VOYAGE PLANNING.Tools for automatic Route and Voyage planning

from Port A to B via C can be integrated as a part of your ECDIS.

Optimizing the schedule taking into consideration the latest weather forecast (weatherrouting) and using integrated environmental databases for Tides and Currents will allow the vessel to proceed along the route at the safest economical speed and arrive at its final destination on time.

Calculation of safety parameters, automatic printing of reports and plans that fulfill all international requirements for voyage planning will enhance the quality of the planning and save hours during preparation of the voyage.

HART MANAGEMENT and DIGITAL PUBLICATIONS.

ECDIS provides unique tools for management of charts and nautical publications in digital format.

This includes ordering updates as well as the preparation of reports. Within a few seconds they can be sent ashore or be included as an integrated part of the voyage plan by showing the current status of the vessels charts and nautical publications.

Online chart ordering and delivery enables the ship owner to minimize the chart portfolio. Providing a tailor made coverage for the particular voyage, together with online chart corrections, will generate significant savings.

ISPLAY OF INFORMATION. ECDIS uniquely combines information from

different sources in one display. Optimized chart presentation gives a perfect background for display of vital information.

This could be weather information, onlinetargets, No Go areas, for example Piracy or MARPOL areas, and additional navigation data.

All this can be made visible just by a single key operation. With predefined layouts enablingeasy shifting between presentations and online updating of the data, there is no better tool than ECDIS for efficient presentation of information of interest – decision making cannot be easier and safer.

NTEGRATION. With ECDIS installed, the integration of all navigational sensors

and relevant data on one spot of the bridge has become reality. Other mandatory systems like Bridge Navigation Watch Alarm

System (BNWAS) can be an integrated part of ECDIS. Running several applications like RADAR, ECDIS, CONNING,

AMS, E-LOG Book on the same workstation gives the officer quick access to all information in a single position (for example, on the bridge wing during mooring operations).

ECDIS also provides redundancy and improves efficiency by avoiding duplication of work, such as route entry in several systems. Integration of ECDIS with the vessel’s communication system enables online communication from Ship to Shore for the exchange of data and reports.

With a module for fuel optimization, integrated with the vessel’s propulsion system, the optimization of speed along the route brings environmental and economic benefits.

AVINGS. With proper set up and use, streamlined procedures (ISM) on

the vessel and in the shipping company as well as a trained and motivated crew, ECDIS is an investment with huge potential for cost savings.

At the same time, efficiency and safety are increased.Savings can be immediately visible, with its biggest potential in the areas of charts and nautical publications, fuel consumption and time spent on planning and preparation of reports.

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Report ‘Effect on ENC Coverage on ECDIS Risk Reduction’ from 2007 already evaluated that ECDIS is a cost effective risk control option for large passenger ships and all othervessel types involved in international trade, with a significant potential to save lives by reductions the frequency of collision and grounding.

The grounding frequency reductions achievable from implementing ECDIS vary between 11% and 38% for the selected routes. This variation is due to variations in ENC coverage. According to DNV, ECDIS represents a net economic benefit itself.

• Claes Möller, Fleet Manager of Tärntank Ship Management AB comments: ‘

“With ECDIS implementation in Tärntank Ship Management vessels, when the vessel transferred from paper charts and books to SENC and ADP we can say that our cost for Charts and Nautical Publication was reduced dramatically by more efficient charts ordering”.

• EXAMPLES FROM USERS EXPERIENCE

ECDIS in combination with Fuel Saving System, detailedweather and current forecast enable us to proceed along the route with the most economical speed. Recording, analysis of data for a series of voyage makes it possible to better predict and optimize the speed for different part of the voyage. ECDIS and the

Fuel Saving System is a motivation factor for the officers to minimize fuel consumption. Our savings are estimated to 3–5%. I think that for a vessel that change from planning and monitoring on paper charts to ECDIS with Fuel Saving System,savings can easily exceed 10% of the fuel consumption.* Wiggo Lander, Captain, Stena Germanica

Our conclusion today is that it’s been a long but rewardingway, since our Navigation officers and crew report back that the system makes them feel more secure and that the operation of the vessel is safer.Capt. Tor-Arne Tönnesen,Maritime Superintendent, Solvang

With the new IMO Requirements, Dual ECDIS withoutpaper charts as a back-up will save money. It’s an easy calculation – not even that ENCs are cheaper than paper charts but if you go halfway you will have double expenses for both paper and ENC. With ECDIS implementation In Nordic Tankers we also reduced time for chart corrections and passage planning by 5 to 10 hours per week.Soren Andersen, Marine Superintendent, SQE,Nordic Tankers Marine A/S

We decided very early to install dual ECDIS onboard our fleet of gas tankers. Our main goal was to increase the safety of navigation but also to reduce the workload for the crew onboard by removing the time consuming task of paper chart corrections. Both goals have been achieved.

The ECDIS provides an excellent overview for the navigators with all important navigational information present on a single screen and the chart workload has been drastically reduced.

Rolf Andersen, Head of Nautical & IT, LauritzenKosan A/S

IMO REQUIREMENTSIMO Resolution A.817 (19)

“Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) means a navigation information system which, with adequate back up arrangements, can be accepted as complying with the up to date chart required by regulation V/19 and V/27 of the 1974 Safety of Lives at Sea (SOLAS) Convention.”

An ECDIS system must at least be connected to an electronic position fixing system (EPFS), a gyro and a log. The connection must be made in such a way and by a certified engineer to ensure that a single fault error cannot influence the system, which means the connection must be made directly to the sensor.

As an ECDIS is a computer based system it must be protected by a UPS (uninterruptible power supply) capable of handling a 45 second blackout during a switch from the vessel’s main to back-up power source without rebooting.

IMO SOLAS V/192.1 All ships irrespective of size shall have:2.1.4 Nautical charts and nautical publications

to plan and display the ship’s route for the intended voyage and to plot and monitor positions throughout the voyage;an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) may be accepted as meeting the chart carriage requirements of this subparagraph.

2.1.5 Back-up arrangements to meet the functional requirements of subparagraph if this function is partly or fully fulfilled by electronic means.

ECDIS CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS

The carriage requirement means an ECDIS must be fitted. This does not automatically

enable the vessel to sail paperless as the requirement is for a single ECDIS.

A single ECDIS can be used for navigation but it requires a backup by paper charts

or a secondary ECDIS.

REGULATIONS

ECDIS (as defined by IHO Publications S-52 and S-57)[5] is an approved marine navigational chart and information system, which is accepted as complying with the conventional paper charts required by Regulation V/19 of the 1974 IMO SOLAS Convention.[6] as amended.

The performance requirements for ECDIS are defined by IMO and the consequent test standards have been developed by the International ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC) in International Standard IEC 61174.[7]

The future standard for ENCs will be defined in IHO Publication S-100.

Electronic Chart Display and Information System

An Electronic Chart Display andInformation System (ECDIS) isa computer-based navigationinformation system that Complies with International Maritime Organization (IMO) Regulations and can be used as an alternative to paper nautical charts. IMO refers to similar systems not meeting the regulations as Electronic Chart Systems (ECS).

An ECDIS system displays the information from electronic navigational charts (ENC) or Digital Nautical Charts (DNC) and integrates position information from position, heading and speed through water reference systems and optionally other navigational sensors.

Other sensors which could interface with an ECDIS are radar, Navtex, automatic identification systems (AIS), Sailing Directions and fathometer.

ECDIS provides continuous

position and navigational

safety information.

The system generates

audible and/or visual

alarms when the vessel

is in proximity to

navigational hazards.

ELECTRONIC CHART DATAThe two most commonly used types of electronic chart data are listed below.ENC CHARTS

ENC charts are Vector charts that conform to the requirements for the chart databases for ECDIS, with standardized content, structure and format, issued for use with ECDIS on the authority of government authorized hydrographic offices. ENCs are vector charts that also conform to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) specifications stated in IHO Publication S-57.

ENCs contain all the chart information necessary for safe navigation, and may contain supplementary information in addition to that contained in the paper chart (e.g., Sailing Directions). These supplementary information may be considered necessary for safe navigation and can be displayed together as a seamless chart. Systems using ENC charts can be programmed to give warning of impending danger in relation to the vessel's position and movement.

Chart systems certified according to marine regulations are required to show these dangers.

RASTER CHARTS

Raster navigational charts are raster charts that conform to IHO specifications and are produced by converting paper charts to digital image by scanner.

The image is similar to digital camera pictures,

which could be zoomed in for more detailed information as it does in ENCs. IHO Publication S-61 provides guidelines for the production of raster data. IMO

Resolution MSC.86(70) permits ECDIS equipment to operate in a Raster Chart Display System (RCDS) mode in the absence of ENC.

According to the IMO performance standard, ECDIS operated in the Raster Chart Display System (RCDS) mode meets the chart carriage requirements for areas where

ENCs are not available. However, for these areas an appropriate portfolio of up-todate paper charts should be carried onboard in accordance with the Flag State

requirements.

Using an ECDIS in the RCDS mode in areas where there are suitable ENCs available is not allowed.

ENCs meet SOLAS chart carriage requirements when they are kept up-to-date and used on a type-approved ECDIS with an adequate back-up arrangement.

A vector chart is a database, where different objects are encoded. Your chart software may sort these objects in categories and display them in layers.

There are many advantages of vector charts:• Automatic alarm generation is possible• Optional information can be displayed (customized settings)• Zoom option with no deterioration of the readability• They are easy to correct• They require little memory capacity (quick loading)• Information can be added (files, pictures etc.)• Good readability in all presentation modes like Head-up, North-up, Course-up• Presentation is adapted according to the safety parameters of your vessel

Although the worldwide

ENC coverage is improving

quickly, it does not yet cover

all sea areas in the necessary

scale. This is the reason why

private companies develop

their own vector chart

folios, such as Transas Marine TX-97 charts or C-Map CM93. These nautical charts are not accepted

as the basis for primary navigation under the SOLAS convention.

All ECDIS manufacturers have different graphic layouts and hardware. But there’s one

thing they all have in common; they all read and use S-57 ENC chart format and transfer it into their own SENC format – System Electronic Navigation Chart format.

This means when an ENC chart is loaded into the system, it becomes a SENC chart. ENCs are supplied on CDs or DVDs. The quarterly issued Base-Set includes all available charts. They are sent to the vessel 4 times per year.

The licence period for ENCs is 3, 6, 9 or 12 months. Additional Chart data may be added

to the licence at any point during the licenceperiod and there is no requirement for all

data to expire at a common date.

This allows the users to hold only the data which is appropriate for their operations at any given time. Some countries do not allow data to

be licensed for a shorter period than 12 months.

ISM SYSTEM

Implementation of ECDIS is not just a matter of getting equipment installed, charts and

updates in place and providing some basic training for a crew and then – “off they go”.

Implementation of ECDIS and, in the end transition from paper charts to navigation by

Electronic Chart, is a fundamental change in routines and procedures, mainly for the

vessel but also for the shipping company operations.

All work that has been

done in paper chart to

fulfill requirements for

Voyage Planning and

Monitoring, as well as

preparation of reports,

should now be done in ECDIS – and it’s a different way of doing it.

Therefore, changes in the ISM code are required where at least the following routines, procedures and checklists must be up to date;• Voyage Planning• Pre-Departure Routines• Pre-Arrival Routines• Watch Keeping Routines• Voyage and Monitoring Routines• Emergency Routines for

Breakdown• Maintenance and Chart Correction Routines• Service and Support Routines

TRAINING

Crucial to implementing ECDIS is the appropriate training for the crew and relevant

managerial staff ashore. All bridge officers should have general ECDIS training that follows the IMO Model Course 1.27. Additional equipment-specific training for the ECDIS model in use onboard is required for every ship, according to the ISM Code.

Until the 1st of January 2012, when the new STCW code will include mandatory ECDIS training, two important shipping regulations must be followed.

The IMO Standards for Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW)

Require the OOW to possess a “thorough knowledge of and ability to use navigational charts and publications” and also “skills and ability to prepare for and conduct a passage, including interpretation and applying information from charts, must be evident”.

The STCW is currently written around paper charts but it is clearly stated in the SOLAS convention that “ECDIS is considered to be included under the term charts”. For some Flag States it is entirely evident that if ECDIS is in use as the primary means of navigation, the user must demonstrate the same degree of knowledge as when working on paper charts.

Therefore the officers of e.g. Isle of Man and UK registered ships need to have an IMO Model Course 1.27 certificate.

The second important regulation is the IMO´s International Safety Management code (ISM).

It states: “The company should establish procedures that personnel are given proper familiarization with their duties and equipment”. This strict wording refers to the training of users of safety-related equipment, such as ECDIS. They must receive appropriate training to the systems in use on a particular vessel prior to use at sea.An ECDIS manufacturer should be able to provide both generic and equipment specific training either onboard or ashore with a designated crew of highly qualifiedtrainers. Some manufacturers even offer computer based or distance learning concepts which can be combined with simulator training ashore.

This may save some time and money while maintaining a high quality of training. Make sure your selectedtraining institute is following the IMO and manufacturer recommended trainingscheme and is certified by external auditors. In order to enjoy a smooth transition from paper charts to ECDIS we recommendtraining designated personnel ashore. Major ECDIS manufacturers should be able toprovide technical training and Train the Trainer courses for internal equipment specifictraining. This enables the shipping company to solve minor difficulties by themselvesand provide ISM Code compliant training to the crew.

If you want to use ECDIS as a primary means of navigation, it’s essential to understand

your Flag State’s requirements for certification. Under existing regulations you will need

to obtain a certificate of equivalency to allow ECDIS to be used and fulfill the SOLAS

chart carriage requirement. As a second step your crew needs to prove the knowledge

and competency of ECDIS and its proper use.

National authorities may require ECDIS training for vessels in their flag registries, or visiting their ports. The European Union has provided “Guidelines for Port State Control on Electronic Charts” with the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (PSC MOU).

Port State control is authorised to determine if “Master and deck watchkeepingofficers are able to produce appropriate documentation that generic and typespecificECDIS familiarization has been undertaken.”

Inspections might require physical demonstrations of competency by your crew as well as evidence of inclusion of ECDIS operation procedures in your onboard safety

management systems.

Some commercial operators’ vetting schemes have similar demands and non-compliance with their requirements could ban your vessel from trade. ECDIS training may also affect liability and insurance.

You should also talk to your classification society and insurance/P&I club to see if they have any further requirements. An ECDIS manufacturer will be able to assist you.

Inspections might require physical demonstrations of competency by your crew as well as evidence of inclusion of ECDIS operation procedures in your onboard safety management systems.

Some commercial operators’ vetting schemes have similar demands and non-compliance with their requirements could ban your vessel from trade. ECDIS training may also affect liability and insurance.

You should also talk to your classification society and insurance/P&I club to see if they have any further requirements. An ECDIS manufacturer will be able to assist you.

Arrangement of navigational systems and equipment

The type and number of systems and equipment to be installed on board the new building for the purpose of navigation should at least incorporate the means specified in

SOLAS regulation 19.

The systems and equipment should be installed and arranged to meet the relevant aims of SOLAS regulation V/15 specified under C.

Procedures related to SOLAS regulation 24, 25, 27 and 28

* The following routines should be included and emphasized in the regular bridgeprocedures:- Use of heading and/or track control systems- Testing of manual steering system after prolonged use of automatic steering system- Operation of steering gear- Updating of nautical charts and nautical publications- Recording of navigational activities

A Full Range of SystemsA full range of dynamicpositioning systems to keep thevessel within specified position And heading limits. These systems Are designed to minimise fuelconsumption and wear and tear onthe propulsion equipment. The K-Pos operator station is available in single, dual or triple configurations. More than 2500 dynamic positioning systems have been supplied.

A navigator safety system or "dead man alarm" is designed tomonitor bridge activity and alert the master or other qualified navigators if the bridge becomes unattended. The system first alerts the officer of the watch through local alarm indication at the bridge unit and, if he is not responding, then alerts the master or other qualified officer.

* The development of this Recommendation has been based on the international regulatory regime and IMO instruments and standards already accepted and referred to by IMO. The platform for the Recommendation is:• the aims specified in SOLAS regulation V/15 for application of SOLAS regulations V/19, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28• the content of SOLAS regulations V/19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28• applicable parts of MSC/Circ.982, “Guidelines on ergonomic criteria for bridge equipment and layout”• applicable parts of IMO resolutions and performance standards referred to in SOLAS• applicable parts of ISO and IEC standards referred to for information in MSC/Circ.982• STCW Code• ISM Code

This Recommendation is developed to serve as a self-contained document for the understanding

and application of the requirements, supported by:

• Annex A giving guidance and examples on how the requirements set forth may be met by

acceptable technical solutions. The guidance is not regarded mandatory in relation to the

requirements and does not in any way exclude alternative solutions that may fulfil the purpose of the requirements.

o Appendix 1 to Annex A, “Tasks and related means – :

Examples of location of main equipment”

• Annex B “Facts and principles – Related to SOLAS V/15 and the IACSRecommendation” that should assist in achieving a common understanding of thecontent of SOLAS regulation 15 and the approach and framework of theRecommendation.

o Appendix 1 to Annex B clarifying the content of each aim of SOLAS regulation V/15.

Chapter C 2 “Bridge alarm management” is established by compilation of relevant IMO and classification requirements and guidelines. The chapter is recommended for compliance until superseded by an IMO performance standard.

The diagram following this foreword gives an overview of approach and content.

Track Control System permits automatic steering along the set route

FURUNO VOYAGER features Track Control System through integration of ECDIS and autopilot. Thisenables the vessel to keep on the plotted route automatically with minimum intervention from the navigator.This has been achieved through:• flexible steering control• route planning on ECDIS• enhanced position reliability through multi-

tiered data validation process

FURUNO VOYAGER user interface includes carefully organized operational tools designed to make navigational tasks simple and easy. The “Status Bar” at the top of the screen clearly indicates operating mode and status and offers direct single-click control of the navigator’s principle tasks.

The “Instant Access” bar at the left of the screen provides direct control of the features and attributes of the on-screen presentation. These on-screen tools deliver straightforward, task-based operation with all multi-function display information in view at all times.

The operator can quickly perform navigational tasks without having to enter intricate menus, thus losing situational awareness.

Network ConfigurationFURUNO VOYAGER onboard Navigation Network System

FURUNO VOYAGER integrates the following two separate networks that link all the onboard navigation equipment, including multifunction displays and various sensors: Network for Integration and Interswitch and Network for Sensor Integration.

The navigation system consists of duplicated subsystems so that any loss of navigational functions can beavoided in an event of single point of failure. Since MFD is able to function as Radar, ECDIS, conning information display and alert management system, navigation tasks can be performed from any of the interfaced multifunction displays, hence optimizing the system availability.

The following materials were printed with the permission of the International Maritime

Organization.

International Conventions

• Adoption

• Entry into force

• Amendment

• Enforcement

Maritime Safety

• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1960 and 1974

• International Convention on Load Lines (LL), 1966• Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement (STP), 1971 • Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing

Collisions at Sea (COLREG)1972• International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC), 1972• Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization

(INMARSAT), 1976• The Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing

Vessels (SFV), 1977 • International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978 • International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR),

1979

Marine Pollution

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL), 1954

• Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other

• Matter (LDC), 1972• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

1973, as modified by• the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL73/78)• International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas

in Cases of Oil• Pollution Casualties (INTERVENTION), 1969• International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response

and Cooperation• (OPRC), 1990

Liability and Compensation

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969

• International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation

• for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1971• Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime

Carriage of Nuclear• Materials (NUCLEAR), 1971• Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers

and their Luggage by Sea (PAL),• 1974• Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

(LLMC), 1976

International Conventions

The industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the upsurge ininternational commerce which resulted led to the adoption of a number of international treatiesrelated to shipping, including safety. The subjects covered included tonnage measurement, theprevention of collisions, signaling and others.

By the end of the nineteenth century suggestions had even been made for the creation of apermanent international maritime body to deal with these and future measures. The plan was notput into effect, but international cooperation continued in the twentieth century, with the adoptionof still more internationally developed treaties.

By the time IMO came into existence in 1958, several important international conventions* had

already been developed, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954 and treaties dealing with load lines and the prevention of collisions at sea.

IMO was made responsible for ensuring that the majority of these conventions were kept up to

date. It was also given the task of developing new conventions as and when the need arose.

The creation of IMO coincided with a period of tremendous change in world shipping and the Organization was kept busy from the start developing new conventions and ensuring that existing instruments kept pace with changes in shipping technology. It is now responsible for 35 international conventions and agreements and has adopted numerous protocols and amendments.

Adopting a Convention

This is the part of the process with which IMO as an organization is most closely involved. IMO has six main bodies concerned with the adoption or implementation of conventions. The Assembly and Council are the main organs, and the committees involved are the Maritime Safety Committee, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Legal Committee and the FacilitationCommittee.

Developments in shipping and other related industries are discussed by Member States in these bodies, and the need for a new convention or amendments to existing conventions can be raised in any of them.

The convention thus agreed upon is then adopted by the conference and deposited with the Secretary-General who sends copies to Governments. The convention is opened for signature by States, usually for a period of 12 months. Signatories may ratify or

accept the convention while non-signatories may accede.

The drafting and adoption of a convention in IMO can take several years to complete although in

some cases, where a quick response is required to deal with an emergency situation, Governments have been willing to accelerate this process considerably.

Entry into ForceThe adoption of a convention marks the conclusion of only the

first stage of a long process. Before the convention comes into force -that is, before it becomes binding upon Governments which have ratified it - it has to be accepted formally by individual Governments. Each convention includes appropriate provisions stipulating conditions which have to be met before it enters into force. These conditions vary but, generally speaking, the more important and more complex the document, the more stringent are the conditions for its entry into force.

For example, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, provided that entry into force requires acceptance by 25 States whose merchant fleets comprise not less than 50 percentof the world’s gross tonnage; for the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, the requirement was acceptance by 25 States whose combined merchant fleets represent not less than 65 percent of world tonnage.

Amendment

Technology and techniques in the shipping industry change very rapidly these days. As a result, not only are new conventions required but existing ones need to be kept up to date. For example, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1960 was amended six timesafter it entered into force in 1965 - in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971 and 1973. In 1974 a completely new convention was adopted incorporating all these amendments (and other minor changes) and was itself modified (in 1978, 1981, 1983, 1988, 1990 and 1991).

In early conventions, amendments came into force only after a percentage of Contracting States, usually two thirds, had accepted them. This normally meant that more acceptances were requiredto amend a convention than were originally required to bring it into force in the first place, especially where the number of States which are Parties to a convention is very large.

In the case of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, an amendment to most of the Annexes (which constitute the technical parts of the Convention) is ‘deemed to have been accepted at the end of two years from the date on which it is communicated to Contracting Governments...’ unless the amendment is objected to by more than one third of Contracting Governments, or Contracting

Governments owning not less than 50 percent of the world’s gross merchant tonnage.

This period may be varied by the Maritime Safety Committee with a minimum limit of one year.

As was expected the "tacit acceptance" procedure has greatly speeded up the amendment process.

Enforcement

The enforcement of IMO conventions depends upon the Governments of Member Parties. The Organization has no powers in this respect. Contracting Governments enforce the provisions of IMO conventions as far as their own ships are concerned and also set the penalties for infringements, where these are applicable. They mayalso have certain limited powers in respect of the ships of other Governments.

In some conventions, certificates are required to be carried on board ship to show that they have been inspected and have met the required standards. These certificates are normally accepted asproof by authorities from other States that the vessel concerned has reached the required standard, but in some cases further action can be taken.

Contracting States are empowered to act against ships of other countries which have been involved in an accident or have been damaged on the high seas if there is a grave risk of oil pollution occurring as a result.

The way in which these powers may be used are very carefully defined, and in most conventions

the flag State is primarily responsible for enforcing conventions as far as its own ships and their personnel are concerned.

The majority of conventions adopted under the auspices of IMO or for which the Organization is

otherwise responsible fall into three main categories.

Maritime Safety

The first group is concerned with maritime safety; the second with the prevention of marine

pollution; and the third with liability and compensation, especially in relation to damage caused by pollution. Outside these major groupings are a number of other conventions dealing with

facilitation, tonnage measurement, unlawful acts against shipping and salvage.

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960 and 1974

• 1960 Convention

• Adoption: 17 June 1960

• Entry into force: 26 May 1965

1974 version

• Adoption: 1 November 1974

• Entry into force: 25 May 1980

• The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is generally regarded

as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships. The first version was adopted in 1914, the second in 1929 and the third in 1948.• The 1960 Convention was the first major task for IMO after

its creation and it represented a considerable step forward in modernizing regulations and in keeping pace with technical developments in the shipping industry.

• The intention was to keep the Convention up to date by periodic amendments but in practice the amendments procedure incorporated proved to be very slow. It became clear that it would be impossible to secure the entry into force of amendments within a reasonable period of time.

The 1974 Convention

• As a result, a completely new convention was adopted in 1974which included not only the amendments agreed up until that date but a new amendment procedure designed to ensure that changes could be made with a specified (and acceptably short) period of time.

• The main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimumstandards for the construction, equipment and operation of ships, compatible with their safety. Flag States are responsible for ensuring that ships under their flag comply with its requirements, and a numberof certificates are prescribed in the Convention as proof that this has been done.

Control provisions also allow Contracting Governments to inspect ships of other ContractingStates if there are clear grounds for believing that the ship and its equipment do not substantiallycomply with the requirements of the Convention.

General provisions are contained in chapter I, the most important of them concerning the surveyof the various types of ships and the issuing of documents signifying that the ship meets therequirements of the Convention. The chapter also includes provisions for the control of ships inports of other Contracting Governments.

Subdivision and stability are dealt within chapter II-1. The subdivision of passenger ships into watertight compartments must be such that after assumed damage to the ship’s hull the vessel will remain afloat and stable. Requirements for watertight integrity and bilge pumpingarrangements for passenger ships are also laid down as well as stability requirements for both passenger and cargo ships.

The degree of subdivision - measured by the maximum permissible distance between two adjacent bulkheads - varies with ship’s length and the service in which it is engaged. The highestdegree of subdivision applies to passenger ships.

Machinery and electrical installations: these requirements, contained in chapter II-1, are designed to ensure that services which are essential for the safety of the ship, passengers and crew aremaintained under various emergency conditions. The steering gear requirements of this chapter are particularly important.

Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction: casualties to passenger ships through fire emphasized the need to improve the fire protection provisions of the 1960 Convention, and in 1966 and 1967 amendments were adopted by the IMO Assembly. These and other amendments,particularly detailed fire safety provisions for tankers and combination carriers, such as inert gas, were incorporated in chapter II-2 of the 1974 Convention.

These provisions are based on the following principles:

1. Division of the ship into main and vertical zones by thermal and structural boundaries.2. Separation of accommodation spaces from the remainder of the ship by thermal and structuralboundaries.3. Restricted used of combustible materials.4. Detection of any fire in the zone of origin.5. Containment and extinction of any fire in the space of origin.6. Protection of the means of escape or of access for firefighting purposes.7. Ready availability of fire-extinguishing appliances.8. Minimization of the possibility of ignition of flammable cargo vapor.

Life-saving appliances and arrangements are dealt with in chapter III, which was completely revised by the 1983 amendments which entered into force on 1 July 1986. The revised chapter isdivided into three parts.• Part A contains general provisions on application of the

requirements, exemptions, definitions, evaluation, testing and approval of appliances and arrangements and production tests.

• Part B contains the ship requirements and is subdivided into section I dealing with common requirements applicable to both passenger ships and cargo ships, section II containing additional requirements for passenger ships and section III containing additional requirements for cargo ships.

Part C deals with the life-saving appliance requirements and is divided into eight sections. Section I contains general requirements, section II requirements for personal life-saving appliances, section III visual signal requirements, section IV requirements for survival craft, section V rescue boat provisions, section VI requirements for launching and embarkation appliances, section VII other life-saving appliances, and section VIII miscellaneous matters.

Radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony form the subject matter of chapter IV: Part A describes the type of facility to be carried Operational requirements for watchkeeping and listening are givenin part B, while technical provisions are detailed in part C. This part also includes technical provisions for direction-finders and for motor lifeboat radiotelegraph installations, together with portable radio apparatus for survival craft. The radio officer’s obligations regarding mandatory log-book entries are listed in part D.

The chapter is closely linked to the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union and was completely revised in October 1988 (see 1988 (GMDSS) amendments).

Safety of navigation is dealt with in chapter V which identifies certain navigation safety services which should be provided by Contracting Governments and seas forth provisions of anoperational nature applicable in general to all ships on all voyages. This is in contrast to the Convention as a whole, which only applies to certain classes of ship engaged on international voyages.

The subjects covered include the maintenance of meteorological services for ships; the ice patrol service; routeing of ships; and the maintenance of search and rescue services.

This chapter also includes a general obligation for masters to proceed to the assistance of those in

distress and for Contracting Governments to ensure that all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view.

Carriage of grain forms the subject matter of chapter VI. Shifting is an inherent characteristic of

grain, and its effect on a ship’s stability can be disastrous. Consequently, the SOLAS Convention

contains provisions concerning stowing, trimming and securing grain cargoes.

Provision is made for ships constructed specially for the transport of grain, and a method for calculating the adverse heeling moment due to a shift of cargo surface in ships carrying bulk grain is specified. It also provides for documents of authorization, grain loading stability data and

associated plans of loading. Copies of all relevant documents must be available on board to enable the master to meet the chapter’s requirements.

This chapter was revised in 1991, to make it applicable to all types of cargo (except liquids and

gases in bulk). (See 1991 amendments).

Carriage of dangerous goods is dealt with in chapter VII, which contains provisions for the classification, packing, marking, labelling and placarding, documentation and stowage of dangerous goods in packaged form, in solid form in bulk, and liquid chemicals and liquefied gases in bulk.

The classification follows the system used by the UN for all modes of transport. The UN system

has been adapted for marine transport and the provisions are in some cases more stringent.

Contracting Governments are required to issue instructions at the national level. To help them do this, the Organization developed the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. The IMDG Code is constantly updated to accommodate new dangerous goods and to supplementor revise existing provisions. Regulations concerning substances carried in bulk in purpose-built ships were introduced in the 1983 amendments dealt with below.

Nuclear ships are covered in chapter VIII. Only basic requirements are given and are particularly concerned with radiation hazards. However, a detailed and comprehensive Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships was adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1981 as an indispensable companion document.

The Protocol of 1978

Adoption: 17 February 1978

Entry into force: 1 May 1981

This was adopted at the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention and made a number of important changes to chapter I, including the introduction of unscheduled inspections and/or mandatory annual surveys and the strengthening of port State control

requirements.

Chapter II-1, chapter II-2 and chapter V were also improved. The main points are as follows:

1. New crude oil carriers and product carriers of 20,000 dwtand above are required to be fittedwith an inert gas system.2. An inert gas system became mandatory for existing crude oil carriers of 70,000 dwt and aboveby 1 May 1983, and by 1 May1985 for ships of 20-70,000 dwt.3. In the case of crude oil carriers of 20-40,000 dwt there is provision for exemption by flag States where it is considered unreasonable or impracticable to fit an inert gas system and highcapacity fixed washing machines are not used. But an inert gas system is always required when crude oil washing is operated.

4. An inert gas system was required on existing product carriers from 1 May 1983 and by 1 May 1985 for ships of 40-70,000 dwt and down to 20,000 dwt which are fitted with high capacity washing machines.5. In addition to requiring that all ships of 1,600 grt and above shall be fitted with radar, the Protocol requires that all ships of 10,000 grt and above have two radars, each capable of being operated independently.6. All tankers of 10,000 grt and above shall have two remote steering gear control systems, each operable separately from the navigating bridge.7. The main steering gear of new tankers of 10,000 grtand above shall comprise two or more identical power units, and shall be capable of operating the rudder with one or more power units.

The 1981 amendmentsAdoption: 20 November 1981Entry into force: 1 September 1984

Perhaps the most important amendments concern chapter II-1 and chapter II-2, both of which were virtually rewritten and updated.

The changes to chapter II-1 include updated provisions of revolution A.325(IX) on machinery and electrical requirements. Further amendments to regulations 29 and 30 were agreed following the Amoco Cadiz disaster and taking into account the 1978 SOLAS Protocol on steering gear.

The requirements introduce the concept of duplication of steering gear control systems in tankers.

Amendments to chapter II-2 include the requirements of resolution A.327(XI), provisions for halogenated hydrocarbon extinguishing systems, special requirements for ships carrying dangerous goods, and a new regulation 62 on inert gas systems. The amendments to chapter II-2 strengthen the requirements for cargo ships and passenger ships to such an extent that a complete rearrangement of that chapter became necessary.

A few minor changes were made to chapter III but seven regulations in chapter IV were replaced, amended or added. Some important changes were also made to chapter V, including the addition of new requirements concerning the carriage of ship borne navigational equipment.

The revised requirements cover such matters as gyro and magnetic compasses; the mandatory

carnage of two radars and of automatic radar plotting aids in ships of 10,000 grt and above;

echo-sounders; devices to indicate speed and distance; rudder angle indicators; propeller

revolution indicators; rate of turn indicators; radio-direction finding apparatus; and equipment for

homing on the radiotelephone distress frequency.

In addition a number of small changes were made to chapter vii.

The 1983 amendmentsAdoption: 17 June 1983Entry into force: 1 July 1986

These amendments include a few minor changes to chapter II-1 and some further changes to chapter II-2 (including improvements to the 1981 amendments) designed particularly to increase the safety of bulk carriers and passenger ships.

The most extensive changes involve chapter III, which has been completely rewritten. The chapter in the 1974 Convention differs little from the texts which appeared in the 1960 and 1948 SOLAS Conventions and the amendments are designed not only to take into account the many technical advances which have taken place since then but also to expedite the evaluation and introduction of further improvements.

Some small changes were made to chapter IV. The amendments to chapter VII extended its

application to chemical tankers and liquefied gas carriers by making reference to two new Codes,

the International Bulk Chemical Code and the International Gas Carrier Code. Both relate to

ships built on or after 1 July 1986.

The 1988 (April) amendmentsAdoption: 21 April 1988Entry into force: 22 October 1989

In March 1987 the car ferry Herald of Free Enterprise apsized and sank with the loss of 193 lives. The United Kingdom proposed a series of measures designed to prevent a recurrence, the first package of which was adopted in April.

They affect regulations 23 and 42 of Chapter II-1 and are intended to improve monitoring of doors and cargo areas and to improve emergency lighting. Because of the urgency, the "tacit acceptance" procedure was used to bring the amendments into force only 18 months after their adoption.

The 1988 (October) amendmentsAdoption: 28 October 1988Entry into force: 29 April 1990

Some of these amendments also resulted from the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. They affect the intact stability of all passenger ships; require all cargo loading doors to be locked before a ship leaves the berth; and make it compulsory for passenger ships to have a lightweight survey at least every five years to ensure their stability has not been adversely affected by the accumulation of extra weight or any alterations to the superstructure.

Other amendments were being prepared before the disaster, but their adoption was brought forward as a result. They concern the stability of passenger ships in the damaged condition, and apply to ships built after 29 April 1990.

The 1988 ProtocolAdoption: 11 November 1988

Entry into force: 12 months after being accepted by at least 15 States whose combined merchant fleets represented at least 50% of world tonnage (but not before 1 February 1992)

Status: 6 acceptances have been received.The Protocol introduces a new system of surveys and

certification which will harmonize with two other conventions, Load Line (page 23) and MARPOL 73/78 (page 40). At present, requirements in the three instruments vary and, as a result, ships may be obliged to go into drydock for a survey required by one convention shortly after being surveyed in connection with another.

By enabling the required surveys to be carried out at the same time the system will reduce costs for shipowners and administrations alike.

The 1988 (GMDSS) amendmentsAdoption: 11 November 1988Entry into force: 1 February 1992

IMO began work on the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System in the 1970's and its introduction will mark the System in the 1970's and its introduction will mark the biggest change to maritime communications since the invention of radio.

It will be introduced in stages between 1993 and 1999. The basic concept of the system is that search and rescue authorities ashore, as well as ships in the vicinity, will be rapidly alerted in theevent of an emergency.

The GMDSS will make great use of the satellite communications provided by INMARSAT but will also use terrestrial radio.

The equipment required by ships will vary accordingly to the area in which they operate. In

addition to distress communications, the GMDSS will also provide for the dissemination of general maritime safety information (such as navigational and meteorological warnings and

urgent information to ships).

The 1989 amendmentsAdoption: 11 April 1989Entry into force: 1 February 1992

The main changes concern Chapter II-1 and II-2 of the convention, which are respectively concerned with ships’ construction and with fire protection, detection and extinction. Chapter II- 1 covers subdivision and stability and machinery and electrical installations. One of the mostimportant amendments is designed to reduce the number and size of openings in watertight bulkheads in passenger ships and to ensure that they are closed in the event of an emergency.

Chapter II-2 deals with fire protection, detection and extinction. Improvements have been introduced to fixed gas fire-extinguishing systems, smoke detection systems, arrangements forfuel and other oils, the location and separation of spaces and several other regulations.

The International Gas Carrier Code - which is mandatory under SOLAS - was also amended.

The 1990 amendmentsAdoption: May 1990Entry into Force: 1 February 1992

Important changes have been made to the way in which the subdivision and stability of dry cargo ships is calculated. They apply to ships of 100 meters or more in length built after 1 February1992.

The amendments are contained in a new part B-1 of chapter II-1 and are based upon the so called "probabilistic" concept of survival, which was originally developed through study of data relating to collisions collected by IMO. This showed a pattern in accidents which could be used in improving the design of ships: most damage, for example, is sustained in the forward part of ships and it seemed logical, therefore, to improve the standard of subdivision there rather than towards the stem.

Because it is based on statistical evidence as to what actually happens when ships collide, the probabilistic concept provides a far more realistic scenario than the earlier"deterministic" method, whose principles regarding the subdivision of passenger ships are theoretical rather than practical in concept.

At the same meeting amendments were adopted to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquified Gases in Bulk.

The 1991 amendmentsAdoption: 24 May 1991Entry into force: 1 January 1994 (expected date under "tacit acceptance")

The most important feature of these amendments is the complete revision of Chapter VI (carriage of grain). This has been extended to include other cargoes. The text is shorter, but the chapter is backed up by two new Codes. The International Grain Code will be a mandatory instrument while the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing is recommended. The new chapter also refers to the Code of Safe Practice for Ships Carrying Timber Deck Cargoes and the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes.

Fire safety requirements for passenger ships have been improved by means of amendments to Chapter II- 1 and other changes have been made to Chapter Ill and Chapter VI (safety of navigation).

International Convention on Load Lines, 1966

Adoption: 5 April 1966Entry into force: 21 July 1968

It has long been recognized that limitations on the draft to which a ship may be loaded make a significant contribution to her safety. These limits are given in the form of freeboards, whichconstitute, besides external weather tight and watertight integrity, the main objective of the Convention.

The first International Convention on Load Lines, adopted in 1930, was based on the principle of reserve buoyancy, although it was recognized then that the freeboard should also ensure adequate stability and avoid excessive stress on the ship’s hull as a result of overloading.

Provisions are made determining the freeboard of tankers by subdivision and damage stability calculations.

The regulations take into account the potential hazards present in different zones and different

seasons. The technical annex contains several additional safety measures concerning doors, freeing ports, hatchways and other items. The main purpose of these measures is to ensure the watertight integrity of ships’ hulls below the freeboard deck.

All assigned load lines must be marked amidships on each side of the ship, together with the deck line. Ships intended for the carriage of timber deck cargo are assigned a small freeboard as the deck cargo provides protection against the impact of waves.

Amendments

Amendments were adopted to the Convention in 1971 (to make certain improvements to the text and to the chart of zones and seasonal areas); in 1975 (to introduce the principle f "tacit acceptance" into the Convention); in 1979 (to make some alterations to zone boundaries off the coast of Australia), and in 1983 (to extend the summer and tropical zones southward off the coastof Chile).

None of these amendments has yet entered into force. In each case 78 acceptances are required and, to date, the 1971 amendments have received 47 acceptances, 1975 - 42; 1979 -40; and 1983- 22.

The 1988 Protocol

Adoption: 11 November 1988Entry into force: 12 months after being accepted by not less than 15 States whose combined merchant fleets constitute not less than 50 percent of world tonnage

Status: 9 acceptances have been receivedThe protocol was adopted in order to

harmonize the Convention’s survey and certificationrequirement with those contained in SOLAS and MARPOL 73/78.

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972

Adoption: 20 October 1972Entry into force: 15 July 1977

This Convention was designed to update and replace the Collision Regulations of 1960 which were annexed to the SOLAS Convention adopted in that year.

One of the most important innovations in the 1972 Regulations was the recognition given to traffic separation schemes.

Rule 10 states that vessels using these schemes will be required to proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane, keeping clear of a traffic separation line or zone. In so far as is practicable, vessels must avoid crossing traffic lanes. When crossing a lane is necessary, it must be accomplished as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of the traffic flow.

The Convention groups provisions into sections dealing with steering and sailing; lights and shapes and sound and light signals. There are also four Annexes containing technical requirements concerning lights and shapes and their positioning; sound signaling appliances; additional signals for fishing vessels when operating in close proximity, and international distress signals.

Guidance is provided in determining safe speed, the risk of collision and the conduct of vessels operating in or near traffic separation schemes. Other rules concern the operation of vessels in narrow channels, the conduct of vessels in restricted visibility, vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver, and provisions concerning vessels constrained by their draught.

The rules also include requirements for special lights for air-cushion vessels operating in the

non-displacement mode, a yellow light to be exhibited above the white sternlight by vessels

engaged in towing, special lights and day signals for vessels engaged in dredging or under-water

operations, and sound signals to be given in restricted visibility.

The technical details of construction and positioning of lights and shapes have been placed in a separate Annex.

The 1981 amendmentsAdoption: 19 November 1981Entry into force: 1 June 1983

These were adopted by the IMO Assembly and entered into force under the "tacit acceptance"procedure on 1 June 1983. A number of rules are affected but perhaps the most important change concerns Rule 10, which has been amended to enable vessels carrying out various safety operations, such as dredging or surveying, to carry out these functions in traffic separation schemes.

The 1987 amendments

Adoption: 19 November 1987

Entry into force: 19 November 1989

The amendments affect several rules, such as Rule 1(e) - vessels of special construction: the

amendment classifies the application of the Convention to such ships; Rule 3(h), which defines a

vessel constrained by her draught; Rule 10(c) -crossing traffic lanes, etc.

The 1989 amendments

Adoption: 19 October 1989

Entry into force: 19 April 1989

The amendment concerns Rule 10 and is designed to stop unnecessary use of the inshore traffic zone.

International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972

Adoption: 2 December 1972Entry into force: 6 September 1977

In view of the rapid increase in the use of freight containers for the consignment of goods by sea and the development of specialized container ships, in 1967 IMO undertook to study the safety of containerization in marine transport. The container itself emerged as the most important aspect to be considered.

In 1972 a conference was held to consider a draft convention prepared by IMO in cooperation with the Economic Commission for Europe. The conference was jointly convened by the United Nations and IMO.

The 1972 Convention for Safe Containers has two goals. One is to maintain a high level of safetyof human life in the transport and handling of containers by providing generally acceptable testprocedures and related strength requirements which have proven adequate over the years.

The other is to facilitate the international transport of containers by providing uniforminternational safety regulations, equally applicable to all modes of surface transport. In this way,proliferation of divergent national safety regulations can be avoided

The requirements of the Convention apply to the great majority of freight containers used internationally, except those designed specially for carriage by air. As it was not intended that all containers, van or reusable packing boxes should be affected, the scope of the Convention is limited to containers of a prescribed minimum size having corner fittings - devices which permit handling, securing or stacking.

The Convention sets out procedures whereby containers used in international transport will be safety-approved by an Administration of a Contracting State or by an organization acting on its behalf.

The Administration or its authorized representative will authorize the manufacturer to affix to approved containers a safety approval plate containing the relevant technical data.

The approval, evidenced by the safety approval plate granted by one Contracting State, should be recognized by other Contracting States. This principle of reciprocal acceptance of safety approvedcontainers is the cornerstone of the Convention; and once approved and plated it is expected that containers will move in international transport with the minimum of safety controlformalities.

The subsequent maintenance of a safety-approved container is the responsibility of the owner, who is required to have the container periodically examined.

The technical Annex to the Convention specifically requires that the container be subjected to various tests which represent a combination of safety requirements of both the inland and maritime modes of transport.

Flexibility is incorporated in the Convention by the provision of simplified amendment procedures which make it possible to speedily adapt the test procedures to the requirements of international container traffic.

The 1981 amendments

Adoption: April 1981

Entry into force: 1 December 1981

The amendments provide transitional arrangements for plating of containers (which had to be completed by 1 January 1985), and for the marking of the date of the container’s next examination by 1 January 1987.

The 1983 amendments

Adoption: June 1983

Entry into force: 1 January 1984

The amendments extend the interval between re-examination to 30 months and permit a choice of container re-examination procedures between the original periodic examination scheme or a new continuous examination program.

The 1991 amendments

Adoption: 17 May 1991

Entry into force: 1 January 1993

The amendments concern Annexes I and II of the Convention. They include the addition of a

new Chapter V to Annex I concerning regulations for the approval of modified containers.

Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization, 1976

Adoption: 3 September 1976Entry into force: 16 July 1979

For some years maritime radio communications frequency bands have become increasingly congested. With the continuous expansion of maritime mobile communications, the situation will continue to deteriorate. This could have serious consequences for maritime communications and safety at sea.

The use of space technology, however, could help overcome the problem and many others which

have arisen in recent years. IMO has been involved in this subject since 1966, and in 1973 decided to convene a conference with the object of establishing a new maritime communications

system based on satellite technology.

The Conference first met in 1975 and held three sessions, at the third of which the Convention

was adopted, together with an Operating Agreement.

The Convention defines the purposes of INMARSAT as being to improve maritimecommunications, thereby assisting in improving distress and safety of life at sea communications,the efficiency and management of ships, maritime public correspondence services, and radiodetermination capabilities.

The Organization consists of an Assembly, Council and a Directorate headed by a Director-General, and the functions of each are defined. An Annex to the Convention outlines proceduresfor the settlement of disputes.

The Operating Agreement set an initial capital ceiling for the Organization of $US 200 million.

Investment shares are determined on the basis of utilization of the INMARSAT space segment.

INMARSAT began operations in 1981 and has its headquarters in London.

The 1985 amendments

Adoption: 16 October 1985

Entry into force: 13 October 1989

The amendments enable INMARSAT to provide services to aircraft as well as ships.

The 1989 amendmentsAdoption: 19 January 1989Entry into force: One year after being accepted by two-thirds of Parties representing two-thirdsof the total investment share.

Status: The amendments have been ratified by 18 countries

The amendments will enable INMARSAT to provide services to land-based vehicles as well as ships and aircraft.

The Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977

Adoption: 2 April 1977

Entry into force: One year after 15 States with 50 percent of the world’s fishing fleet of vessels

of 24 metres in length have ratified the Convention.

Status: The Convention has been ratified by 15 States, (other requirements not yet met)

The Convention is the first-ever international convention on the safety of fishing vessels, and was adopted at a conference held in Torremolinos, Spain.

The safety of fishing vessels has been a matter of concern to IMO since it came into existence, but the great differences in design and operation between fishing vessels and other types of ships had always proved a major obstacle to their inclusion in the Conventions on Safety of Life at Seaand Load Lines.

The Convention contains safety requirements for the construction and equipment of new, decked,seagoing fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, including those vessels also processing their catch. Existing vessels are covered only in respect of radio requirements.

One of the most important features of the Convention is that it contains stability requirements for the first time in an international convention.

Other chapters deal with such matters as construction, watertight integrity and equipment;machinery and electrical installations and unattended machinery spaces; fire protection,detection, extinction, and fire fighting; protection of the crew; life-saving appliances; emergencyprocedures, musters and drills; radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony; and shipborne navigationalequipment.

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978

Adoption: 7 July 1978Entry into force: 28 April 1984

The Convention is the first to establish basic requirements on training, certification andwatchkeeping for seafarers on an international level.

The technical provisions of the Convention are contained in an Annex, which is divided into six chapters. The first contains general provisions and the contents of the others are outlined below.

1. Master-deck department: This chapter outlines basic principles to be observed in keeping a navigational watch.

• It then lays down mandatory minimum requirements for the certification of masters, chief mates and officers in charge of navigational watches on ships of 200 grt or more. Other regulations deal with mandatory minimum requirements for officers in charge of navigational watches and masters of ships of less than 200 grt and for ratings forming part of a navigational watch.

• The chapter also includes regulations designed to ensure the continued proficiency and updating of knowledge for masters and deck officers. Further requirements are contained in a number of Annexes.

2. Engine Department: This chapter outlines basic principles to be observed in keeping an engineering watch. It includes mandatory minimum requirements for certification of chief and second engineer officers of ships with main propulsion machinery of 3000 kW or more and for ships of between 750 kW and 3000 kW.• Mandatory minimum requirements are also laid down for the certification of engineer officers in charge of a watch in a traditionally manned engine room, or the designated engineer in a periodically unmanned engine room, and the chapter also establishes mandatory minimum requirements for ratings forming part of an engine room watch.

3. Radio Department: The first regulation in this chapter deals with radio watchkeeping and maintenance. The chapter goes on to establish mandatory minimum requirements for certification of radio officers and radio operators, and requirements to ensure their continued proficiency and updating of knowledge. Another regulation establishes mandatory minimum requirements for certification of radiotelephone operators.4. Special requirements for tankers: This chapter deals with additional mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualification of masters, officers and ratings of oil tankers, chemical tankers and liquefied gas tankers.

5. Proficiency in survival craft: This chapter is concerned with mandatory minimum

requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency in survival craft.

• The requirements of the Convention are augmented by 23 resolutions adopted by the Conference, many of which contain more detailed provisions on the subjects covered by the Convention itself.

The 1991 amendments

Adoption: 22 May 1991

Entry into force: 1 December 1992

The amendments are mostly concerned with the additional requirements made necessary by the

implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) which will be phased in from 1 February 1992 to 1 February 1999.

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979

Adoption: 27 April 1979Entry into force: 22 June 1985

The main purpose of the Convention is to facilitate co-operation between Governments and between those participating in search and rescue (SAR) operations at sea by establishing an international SAR plan. Cooperation of this type is encouraged by SOLAS 1974, Parties to whichundertake ‘to ensure that any necessary arrangements are made for coast watching and for therescue of persons in distress round its coasts.

These arrangements should include the

establishment, operation and maintenance of such maritime safety facilities as are deemed practicable and necessary’.

The technical requirements of the SAR Convention are contained in an Annex. Parties to the Convention are required to ensure that arrangements are made for the provision of adequate SAR services in their coastal waters.

Parties are encouraged to enter into SAR agreements with neighboring States involving the establishment of SAR regions, the pooling of facilities, establishment of common procedures, training and liaison visits.

The Convention states that Parties should take measures to expedite entry into its territorial waters of rescue units from other Parties.

The Convention then goes on to establish preparatory measures which should be taken, including the establishment of rescue coordination centres and subcentres. It outlines operating procedures to be followed in the event of emergencies or alerts and during SAR operations. This includes the designation of an on-scene commander and his duties.

Parties to the Convention are required to establish ship reporting systems, under which ships report their position to a coast radio station. This enables the interval between the loss of contact with a vessel and the initiation of search operations to be reduced. It also helps to permit the rapid determination of vessels which may be called upon to provide assistance including medical help when required.

Marine Pollution International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil,

1954, as amended in 1962,1969 and 1971 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended

in 1962,1969 and 1971

• Adoption: 12 May 1954

• Entry into force: 26 July 1958

• 1962 amendments adopted: April 1962

• Entry into Force: 18 May/ 28 June 1967

• 1969 amendments adopted: 21 October 1969

• Entry into Force 20 January 1978

• 1971 (Great Barrier Reef) amendments adopted: 12 October 1971

• Entry into force:*

• 1971 (Tanks) amendments adopted: 15 October1971

• Entry into Force:*

One of the earliest indications of marine pollution as a problem requiring international control was pollution of the sea by oil.

In 1954, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil was

adopted. It has now been superseded by MARPOL 73/78 (see below) but is described here because of its historical importance.

Depositary responsibilities for this Convention were passed to IMO when it was established in

1959. As one of its first tasks, the Organization carried out a worldwide enquiry into the general

extent of oil pollution, the availability of shore reception facilities and the progress of research

on methods of combating the increasing menace. The results of this survey led IMO to convene a

conference in 1962 which extended the application of the 1954 Convention to ships of lesser gross tonnage, and enlarged the prohibited zones.

The Convention prohibits the deliberate discharge of oil or oily mixtures from all sea going vessels, except tankers of under 150 tons gross and other ships of under 500 tons gross, in specific areas called ‘prohibited zones’. In general these extend at least 50 miles from all land areas, although zones of 100 miles and more were established in areas which included the

Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas, the Gulf and Red Sea, the coasts of Australia, Madagascar and some others.

The Contracting Parties undertake to promote the provision of facilities for the reception of oil

residues and oily mixtures without causing undue delay to ships. The Convention prescribes that

every ship which uses oil fuel and every tanker shall be provided with a book in which all the oil transfers and ballasting operations shall be recorded.

The oil record book may be inspected by authorities of any Contracting Party.

Contracting Parties have the right to inform another Contracting Party when one of the latter’s

ships contravenes the provisions of the Convention. The Government so informed shall investigate the matter and, if satisfied that sufficient evidence is available, cause proceedings to be taken. The reporting Government and IMO shall be given the result of such proceedings.

Any contravention of the provisions of the Convention shall be an offence punishable under the law of the ‘flag’ State.

Penalties for unlawful discharge outside that State’s territorial sea shall not be less than penalties which may be imposed for the same infringements within its territorial sea. The Contracting Governments agreed to report to the Organization the penalties actually imposed for each infringement.

Although the restrictions imposed by the 1954 Convention were very effective, the enormous

growth in oil movements during the 1960's made it necessary to introduce more stringent regulations.

1969 amendments

In October 1969, further extensive amendments to the Oil Pollution Convention and its Annex

were approved which are generally based upon the principle of total prohibition of oil discharge

and give international recognition to the "load on top" system.

The restrictions include:

(a) Limitation of the total quantity of oil which a tanker may discharge in a ballast voyage to

1/15,000 of the ship’s total cargo-carrying capacity;

(b) Limitation of the rate at which oil may be discharged to a maximum of 60 liters per mile

travelled by the ship;

(c) Prohibition of discharge of any oil whatsoever from the cargo spaces of a tanker within 50 miles of the nearest land.

A new form of oil record book was also formulated to facilitate the task of the officials

concerned with controlling the observance of the Convention.

1971 amendments

In 1971, two further amendments were approved by the IMO Assembly. One recognized the need to protect the Great Barrier Reef a an area of unique scientific importance and set out the precise limits of a protective zone which is considerably in excess of that prescribed in the Convention.

The other introduced a limitation on the size of individual cargo tanks in VLCCs and was designed to limit the outflow of oil in the case of collision or grounding.

The implication of this oil outflow limitation varies according to various factors, such as the

arrangement of tanks, the fitting of double bottoms, the interposing of clean water ballast tanks, etc.; but in the case of normal single hull tankers of up to 422,000 tons dwt, with two

longitudinal bulkheads, the capacity of a single center tank and a wing tank is limited to 30,000 m3 and 15,000 m3, respectively, and thereafter gradually increases to 40,000 m3 and 20,000 m3, respectively, for a tanker of one million tons dwt.

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972

Adoption: 13 November 1972

Entry into force: 30 August 1975

The Inter-Governmental Conference on the Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea, which

met in London in November 1972 at the invitation of the United Kingdom, adopted this instrument, generally known as the London Dumping Convention.

The Convention came into force on 30 August 1975 and IMO was made responsible for the

Secretariat duties related to it.

The Convention has a global character, and represents a further step towards the international

control and prevention of marine pollution. It prohibits the dumping of certain hazardous

materials, requires a prior special permit for the dumping of a number of other identified materials and a prior general permit for other wastes or matter.

Dumping’ has been defined as the deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from

vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of

these vessels or platforms themselves.

Wastes derived from the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed mineral resources are, however, excluded from the definition. The provision of the Convention shall also not apply when it is necessary to secure the safety of human life or of vessels in cases of force majeure.

Among other requirements, Contracting Parties undertake to designate an authority to deal with permits, keep records, and monitor the condition of the sea.

Other articles are designed to promote regional co-operation, particularly in the fields of monitoring and scientific research.

Annexes list wastes which cannot be dumped and others for which a special dumping permit is required. The criteria governing the issuing of these permits are laid down in a third Annex which deals with the nature of the waste material, the characteristics of the dumping site and method of disposal.

The 1978 amendments (incineration)Adoption: 12 October 1978Entry into force: 11 March 1979

The amendments affect Annex I of the Convention and are concerned with the incineration of The 1978 amendments (incineration)Adoption: 12 October 1978Entry into force: 11 March 1979

The amendments affect Annex I of the Convention and are concerned with the incineration of wastes and other matter at sea.The 1978 amendments (disputes)Adoption: 12 October 1978Entry into force: 60 days after being accepted by two thirds of Contracting Parties.Status: The amendments have been accepted by 14 States

As these amendments affect the articles of the Convention they are not subject to the "tacit acceptance" procedure and will enter into force one year after being positively accepted by two thirds of Contracting Parties. They introduce new procedures for the settlement of disputes.

The 1980 amendments (list of substances)Adoption: 24 September 1980Entry into force: 11 March 1981

These amendments are related to those concerned with incineration and list substances which require special care when being incinerated.

The 1989 amendments

Adoption: 3 November 1989

Entry into force: 19 May 1990

The amendments qualify the procedures to be followed when issuing permits under Annex III.

Before this is done, consideration has to be given to whether there is sufficient scientific information available to assess the impact of dumping.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as

modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)

This instrument is a combination of two other treaties adopted in 1973 and 1978 respectively. Although it is now one instrument it is described under two headings to show how it evolved.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973

Adoption: 2 November 1973

Entry into force: 2 October 1983

Despite the action already taken by IMO to deal with oil pollution, far-reaching developments in modern industrial practices soon made it clear that further action, was required.

Accordingly the IMO Assembly decided in 1969 to convene an international conference to prepare a suitable international agreement for placing restraints on the contamination of the sea, land and air by ships. That Convention was adopted in November 1973.

It covers all the technical aspects of pollution from ships, except the disposal of waste into the sea by dumping, and applies to ships of all types, although it does not apply to pollution arising out of the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed mineral resources.

The Convention has two Protocols dealing respectively with Reports on Incidents involving Harmful Substances and Arbitration; and five Annexes which contain regulations for the prevention of various forms of pollution:(a) pollution by oil;(b) pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk; (c) pollution by harmful substances carried in packages, portable tanks, freight containers, or road or rail tank wagons, etc.;(d) pollution by sewage from ships; and,(e) pollution by garbage from ships.

The main provisions of the 1973 Convention, supplemented as appropriate by the related decisions of the Conference, are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oilEntry into force: 2 October 1983

The Convention maintains the oil discharge criteria prescribed in the 1969 amendments to the 1954 Oil Pollution Convention (see above), without substantial changes, except that the maximum quantity of oil which is permitted to be discharged on a ballast voyage of new oil tankers has been reduced from 1/15,000 of the cargo capacity of 1/30,000 of the amount of cargo carried. These criteria apply equally both to persistent (black) and non-persistent (white) oils.

A new and important feature of the 1973 Convention is the concept of "special areas" which are considered to be so vulnerable to pollution by oil that oil discharges within them have been

completely prohibited, with minor and well-defined exceptions. The main special areas are the

Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Red Sea and the Gulfs area.

All oil-carrying ships are required to be capable of operating the method of retaining oily wastes on board through the "load on top" system or for discharge to shore reception facilities.

This involves the fitting of appropriate equipment, including an oil-discharge monitoring and control system, oily-water separating equipment and a filtering system, slop tanks, sludge tanks, piping and pumping arrangements.

New oil tankers (i.e. those for which the building contract was placed after 31 December 1975) of 70,000 tons deadweight and above, must be fitted with segregated ballast tanks large enough

to provide adequate operating draught without the need to carry ballast water in cargo oil tanks.

Secondly, new oil tankers are required to meet certain subdivision and damage stability requirements so that, in any loading conditions, they can survive after damage by collision orstranding.

Annex II: Control of pollution by noxious liquid substancesEntry into force: 6 April 1967

Annex II details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk.

Some 250 substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to the Convention. The discharge of their residues is allowed only to reception facilities until certain concentrations and conditions (which vary with the category of substances) air complied with. In any case, no discharge of residues containing noxious substances is permitted within 12 miles of the nearest

land. More stringent restrictions apply to the Baltic and Black Sea areas.

Annex III: Prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried in packaged form, or in freight

containers or portable tanks or road and rail tank wagons

Entry into force: 1 July 1992

This is the first of the convention’s optional annexes. States ratifying the Convention must accept

Annexes I and II but can choose not to accept the other three. Consequently, the latter have all taken much longer to meet the requirements for entry into force.

Annex III contains general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking, labeling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, exceptions and notifications for preventing pollution by harmful substances.

To help implement the Annex, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code has been amended to include marine pollutants. The amendments to the Code entered into force on 1 January 1991.

Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage Entry into force: 12 months after being ratified by 15 States whose combined fleets of merchant shipping constitute at least 50% of the world fleet.

Status: The Annex has been accepted by 34 States whose fleets represent 37% of world tonnage.

The second of the three optional Annexes, these contain requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage.

Annex V. (garbage)Entry into force: 31 December 1988

This deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of. The requirements are much stricter in a number of "special areas’ but perhaps the most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban imposed on the dumping into the sea of all forms of plastic.

Enforcement

Any violation of the Convention within the jurisdiction of any Party to the Convention is

punishable either under the law of that Party or under the law of the flag State. In this respect, the ten-term ‘jurisdiction’ in the Convention should be cons in the light of international law in force at the time the Convention is applied or interpreted.

With the exception of very small vessels, ships engaged on international voyages must carry on board valid international certificates which may be accepted at foreign ports as prima facie evidence that the ship complies with the requirements of the Convention.

If, however, there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificate, or if the ship does not carry a valid certificate, the authority carrying out the inspection may detain the ship until it is satisfied that the ship can proceed to sea without presenting unreasonale threat of harm to the marine environment.

Under article 17, the Parties to the Convention accept the obligation to promote, in consultation with other international bodies and with the assistance of UNEP, support for those Parties which request technical assistance for various purposes, such as training, the supply of equipment, research, and combating pollution.

The Protocol of 1978

Adoption: 17 February 1978Entry into force: 2 October 1983

The International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention held from 6 to 17 February 1978, resulted in the adoption of a number of important measures, including Protocols to SOLAS 1974 and MARPOL 1973. The Conference decided that the SOLAS Protocol should be a separate instrument, and should enter into force after the parent convention.

In the case of MARPOL, however, the Conference adopted a different approach. At that time the principal problems preventing early ratification of the MARPOL Convention were thoseassociated with Annex II. The changes envisaged by the Conference involved mainly Annex I and it was therefore decided to adopt the agreed changes and at the same time to allow

Contracting States to defer implementation of Annex II for three years after the date of entry intoforce of the Protocol (i.e. on 2 October 1986). By then it was expected that the technical problems would have been solved.

The Protocol makes a number of changes to Annex I of the parent convention. Segregated ballast tanks (SBT) are requited on all new tankers of 20,000 dwt and above (in the parent convention SBTs were only required on new tankers of 70,000 dwt and above). The Protocol also requires that SBTs be protectively located -that is, they must be positioned in such a way that they will help protect the cargo tanks in the event of a collision or grounding.

Another important innovation concerned crude oil washing (COW), which had recently been developed by the oil industry and offered major benefits. Under COW, tanks are washed not with water but with crude oil - the cargo itself COW is accepted as an alternative to SBTs on existing tankers and is an additional requirement on new tankers.

For existing crude oil tankers a third alternative was permissible for a period of two to four years after entry into force of MARPOL 73/78 This is called dedicated clean ballast tanks (CBI) and is a system whereby certain tanks are dedicated solely to the carriage of ballast water. This is

cheaper than a full SBT system since it utilizes existing pumping and piping, but when the period

of grace has expired other systems must be used.

Drainage and discharge arrangements were also altered in the Protocol, regulations for improved stripping systems were introduced.

Some oil tankers operate solely in specific trades between ports which are provided with adequate reception facilities. Some others do not use water as ballast. The TSPP Conference recognized that such ships should not be subject to all MARPOL requirements and they are consequently exempted from the SBT, COW and CBT requirements.

It is generally recognized that the effectiveness of international conventions depends upon the degree to which they are obeyed and this in turn depends largely upon the extent to which they are enforced.

The 1978 Protocol to MARPOL therefore introduced stricter regulations for the survey and certification of ships.

This procedure in effect meant that the Protocol had absorbed the parent convention. States which ratify the Protocol must also give effect to the provisions of the 1973 Convention: there is no need for a separate instrument of ratification for the latter. The 1973 MARPOL Convention and the 1978 MARPOL Protocol should therefore be read as one instrument, which is usually referred to as MARPOL 73/78.

The 1984 amendments

Adoption: 7 September 1984

Entry into force: 7 January 1986

The amendments are concerned with Annex I of the Convention and are designed to make implementation easier and more effective. New requirements are designed to prevent oily water being discharged in special areas, and other requirements are strengthened. But in some cases they have been eased, provided that various conditions are met: some discharges may now be

permitted below the waterline, for example, which helps to cut costs by reducing the need for extra piping.

The 1985 (Annex II) amendmentsAdoption: 5 December 1985Entry into force: 6 April 1987

The amendments are concerned with Annex III, which deals with liquid noxious substances (suchas chemicals). They take into account technological developments since the Annex was drafted in 1973 and are also intended to simplify its implementation. In particular they are intended to reduce the need for reception facilities for chemical wastes and to improve cargo tank stripping efficiencies.

The amendments also make the International Bulk Chemical Code mandatory. This is important because the Annex itself is concerned only with discharge procedures: the Code contains carriage requirements. The Code itself was revised to take into account anti-pollution requirements and the result will be to make the amended Annex more effective in reducing accidental pollution.

The 1985 (Protocol 1) amendments

Adoption: 5 December 1985

Entry into force: 6 April 1987

The amendments make it an explicit requirement to report incidents involving discharge into the sea of harmful substances in packaged form.

The 1987 amendmentsAdoption: December 1978Entry into force: 1 April 1989

The amendments extended Annex I Special Area status to the Gulf of Aden. 1989 (March) amendments

Adoption: March 1989Entry into force: 13 October 1990

One group of amendments affect the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code). This is mandatory under both MARPOL 73/78 and SOLAS and applies to ships built on or after 1 July 1986.

Adoption: March 1989Entry into force: 13 October 1990

One group of amendments affect the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code). This is mandatory under both MARPOL 73/78 and SOLAS and applies to ships built on or after 1 July 1986.

A second group concerns the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH). In both cases, the amendments include revised list of chemicals. The BCH Code is mandatory under MARPOL 73/78 but is voluntary under SOLAS1974.

The third group of amendments affect Annex II of MARPOL. The lists of chemicals in appendices II and Ill are replaced by new ones.

The third group of amendments affect Annex II of MARPOL. The lists of chemicals in

appendices II and Ill are replaced by new ones.

The October 1989 amendments

Adoption: 17 October 1989

Entry into force: 18 February 1991

The amendments make the North Sea a "special area" under Annex V of the convention. This greatly increases the protection of the sea against the dumping of garbage from ships.

The 1990 (HSSC) amendments

Adoption: March 1990

Entry into force: Six months after the entry into force of the 1988 SOLAS and Load Line

Protocols

The amendments are designed to introduce the harmonized system of survey and certificates

(HSSC) into MARPOL 73/78 This can be done through the "tacit acceptance" procedure, which

is not possible in the case of SOLAS and the Load Line Convention.

The 1990 (IBC Code) amendments

Adoption: March 1990

Entry into force: On the same date as the March 1990 HSSC amendments. The amendments introduce the HSSC into the IBC Code.

The amendments introduce the HSSC into the IBC Code.

The 1990 (BCH) amendments

Adoption: March 1990

Entry into force: On the same date as the March 1990 HSSC amendments.

The amendments introduce the HSSC into the BCH Code.

The 1990 (Annexes I and V) amendmentsAdoption: November 1990Entry into force: 17 March 1992

The amendments extend Special Area Status under Annexes I and V to the Antarctic.

The 1991 amendmentsAdoption: 4th July 1991Entry into force: 4 April 1993 (under "tacit acceptance", unless rejected).

The amendments will make the Wider Caribbean a Special Area under Annex V.

International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969

Adoption: 29 November 1969Entry into force: 6 May 1975

The Torrey Canyon disaster of 1967 revealed certain doubts with regard to the powers of States, under public international law, in respect of incidents on the high seas. In particular, questions were raised as to the extent to which a coastal State could take measures to protect its territory from pollution where a casualty threatened that State with oil pollution, especially if the measures necessary were likely to affect the interests of foreign shipowners, cargo owners and even flag States.

The general consensus was that there was need for a new regime which, while recognizing the need for some State intervention on the high seas in cases of grave emergency, clearly restricted that right to protect other legitimate interests. A conference to consider such a regime was held inBrussels in 1969.

The Convention which resulted affirms the right of a coastal State to take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate danger to its coastline or related interests from pollution by oil or the threat thereof, following upon a maritime casualty.

The coastal State is, however, empowered to take only such action as is necessary, and after dueconsultations with appropriate interests including, in particular, the flag State or States of the ship or ships involved, the owners of the ships or cargoes in question and, where circumstances permit, independent experts appointed for this purpose. A coastal State which takes measures beyond those permitted under the Convention is liable to pay compensation for any damage caused by such measures. Provision is made for the settlement of disputes arising in connection with the application of the Convention.

The Convention applies to all seagoing vessels except warships or other vessels owned or operated by a State and used on Government non-commercial service.

The Protocol of 1973Adoption: 2 November 1973Entry into force: 30 March 1983

The 1969 Intervention Convention applied to casualties involving pollution by oil. In view of the increasing quantity of other substances, mainly chemical, carried by ships, some of which would, if released, cause serious hazard to the marine environment, the 1969 Brussels Conference recognized the need to extend the Convention to cover substances other than oil.

Following considerable work on this subject within the Legal Committee, draft articles for aninstrument to extend the application of the 1969 Convention to substances other than oil wereprepared and submitted to the 1973 London Conference on Marine Pollution.

The Conference adopted the Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than oil. This extends the regime of the 1969 Intervention Convention to substances which are either listed in the Annex to the Protocol or which have characteristics substantially similar to those substances.

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990

Adoption: 30 November 1990Entry into Force: 12 months after being accepted by 15 StatesStatus: No acceptances have been received In June 1989, a conference of leading industrial nations in Paris called upon IMO to develop further measures to prevent pollution from ships. This call was endorsed by the IMO Assembly in November of the same year and work began on a draft convention.

The purpose of the convention is to provide a global framework for international cooperation in combating major incidents or threats of marine pollution. Parties to the convention will be required to establish measures for dealing with pollution accidents, either nationally or in cooperation with other countries. Ships are required to carry a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan, the contents of which are to be developed by IMO.

Ships are required to report incidents of pollution to coastal authorities and the convention details the actions that are then to be taken. The convention calls for the establishment of stockpiles of oil spill combating equipment, the holding of oil spill combating exercise and the development ofdetailed plans for dealing with pollution incidents. Parties to the convention are required to provide assistance to others in the event of a pollution emergency and provision is made for thereimbursement of any assistance provided.

The convention provides for IMO to play an important coordinating role.

Liability and Compensation International Convention on Civil Liability for OilPollution

Damage, 1969

Adoption: 29 November 1969

Entry into force: 19 June 1975

Another major legal issue raised by the Torrey Canyon incident related to the basis and extent of the ship or cargo owners’ liability for damage suffered by States or other persons as a result of a marine casualty involving oil pollution.

The aim of the Civil Liability Convention is to ensure that adequate compensation is available to persons who suffer oil pollution damage resulting from maritime casualties involving oil-carrying ships. The Convention places the liability for such damage on the owner of the ship from which the polluting oil escaped or was discharged.

Subject to a number of specific exceptions, this liability is strict; it is the duty of the owner to prove in each case that any of the exceptions should in fact operate. However, except where the owner has been guilty of actual fault, he may limit his liability in respect of any one incident to slightly over $US 125 for each ton of the ship’s gross tonnage, with a maximum liability of $US14 million* for each incident.

The Convention requires ships covered by it to maintain insurance or other financial security in sums equivalent to the owner’s total liability for one incident.

The Convention applies to all seagoing vessels actually carrying oil in bulk as cargo, but only ships carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil are required to maintain insurance in respect of oil pollution damage.

This does not apply to warships or other vessels owned or operated by a State and used for the time being for Government non-commercial service. The Convention, however, applies in

respect of the liability and jurisdiction provisions, to ships owned by a State and used for commercial purposes. The only exception as regards such ships is that they are not required to carry insurance. Instead they must carry a certificate issued by the appropriate authority of the State of their registry stating that the ship’s liability under the Convention is covered.

The Protocol of 1976Adoption: 9 November 1976Entry into force: 8 April 1981

The 1969 Civil Liability Convention used the ‘Poincare’, based on the ‘official’ value of gold, as the applicable unit of account. Experience has shown, however, that the conversion of this goldfranc into national currencies was becoming increasingly difficult. In view of this a Protocol to the Convention was adopted in 1976 which provides for a new unit of account, based on the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, in order to cater for those countries which are not members of the IMF and whose laws do not permit the use of the SDRs, the Protocol provides for an alternate monetary unit - based, as before, on gold.

The Protocol of 1984

Adoption: 25 May 1984

Entry into force: 12 months after being accepted by 10 States, including six with tanker fleets of

at least 1 million gross tons.

Status: 7 acceptances have been received.

While the compensation system established by the 1969 CLC and 1971 Fund Convention had proved very useful, by the mid-1980's it was generally agreed that the limits of liability were too low to provide adequate compensation in the event of a major pollution incident.

Under the CLC Protocol, a ship up to 5,000 gross ton will be able to limit its liability to $US 3.12 million while for ships above that figure the limit will increase in proportion to their tonnage, up to a maximum of $US 62 million for ships of 140,000 gross ton and above. The 1984 Protocol provides for a new and simplified procedure for amending the liability limits in the Protocol.

International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution

Damage, 1971

Adoption: 18 December 1971

Entry into force: 16 October 1978

Although the 1969 Civil Liability Convention provided a useful mechanism for ensuring the

payment of compensation for oil pollution damage, it did not deal satisfactorily with all the legal, financial and other questions raised during the Conference.

Some States objected to the regime established, since it was based on the strict liability of the shipowner for damage which he could not foresee and, therefore, represented a dramatic

departure from traditional maritime law which based liability on fault. On the other hand, some

States felt that the limitation figures adopted were likely to be inadequate in cases of oil pollution

damage involving large tankers. They therefore wanted an unlimited level of compensation or a

very high limitation figure.

In the light of these reservations, the 1969 Brussels Conference considered a compromise

proposal to establish an international fund, to be subscribed to by the cargo interests, which would be available for the dual purpose of, on the one hand, relieving the shipowner of the burden imposed on him by the requirements of the new convention and, on the other hand, providing additional compensation to the victims of pollution damage in cases where compensation under the 1969 Civil Liability Convention was either inadequate or unobtainable.

The Conference recommended that IMO should prepare such a scheme. The Legal Committee accordingly prepared draft articles and the Convention was adopted at a Conference held in Brussels. It is supplementary to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention.

The purposes of the Fund Convention are:

1. To provide compensation for pollution damage to the extent that the protection afforded by the

1969 Civil Liability Convention is inadequate.

2. To give relief to shipowners in respect of the additional financial burden imposed on them by

the 1969 Civil Liability Convention, such relief being subject to conditions designed to ensure

compliance with safety at sea and other conventions.

3. To give effect to the related purposes set out in the Convention.

Under the first of its purposes, the Fund is under an obligation to pay compensation to States and persons who suffer pollution damage, if such persons are unable to obtain compensation from the owner of the ship from which the oil escaped or if the compensation due from such owner is not sufficient to cover the damage suffered.

Under the Fund Convention, victims of oil pollution damage may be compensated beyond the level of the shipowner’s liability. However, the Fund’s obligations are limited so that the total payable to victims by the shipowner and the Fund shall not exceed $US 30 million for any one incident. In effect, therefore, the Fund’s maximum liability for each incident is limited to $US 16 million.

Where, however, them is no shipowner liable or the shipowner liable is unable to meet hisliability, the Fund will be required to pay the whole amount f compensation due. Under certain circumstances, the Fund’s maximum liability may increase to not more than $US 60 million for each incident.

With the exception of a few cases, the Fund will be obliged to pay compensation to the victimsof oil pollution damage who are unable to obtain adequate or any compensation from theshipowner or his guarantor under the 1969 Convention.

The Fund’s obligations to pay compensation is confined to pollution damage suffered in the

territories including the territorial sea of Contracting States. The Fund is also obliged to pay

compensation in respect of measures taken by a Contracting State outside its territory.

The Fund can also provide assistance to Contracting States which are threatened or affected by pollution and wish to take measures against it. This may take the form of personnel, material,

credit facilities or other aid.

In connection with its second main function, the Fund is obliged to indemnify the shipowner or

his insurer for a portion of the shipowner’s liability under the Liability Convention. This portion

is equivalent to $US 100 per ton or $US 8.3 million, whichever is the lesser.

The Fund is not obliged to indemnify the owner if damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or if the accident was caused even partially because the ship did not comply with certain

conventions.

The Convention contains provisions on the procedure for claims, rights and obligations, and

jurisdiction.

Contributions to the Fund should be made by all persons who receive oil by sea in Contracting States. The Fund’s Organization consists of an Assembly of States, a Secretariat headed by a director appointed by the Assembly; and an Executive Committee.

The Protocol of 1976

Adoption: 19 November 1976

Entry into force: 90 days after being accepted by 8 States which have received a total or 750

million tons of contributing oil during the previous calendar year.

Status: 19 acceptances have been received (representing about 75 percent of the total

contributing oil required)

The 1971 Fund Convention applied the same unit of account as the 1969 Civil Liability

Convention, i.e. the ‘Poincare franc’. For similar reasons the Protocol provides for a unit of

account, based on the Special Drawing Right (SDR) as used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Protocol of 1984

Adoption: 25 May 1984

Entry into force: 12 months after being accepted by at least 8 States whose combined total of

contributing oil amounted to at least 600 million tons during the previous calendar year

Status: 2 acceptances have been received

The Protocol is primarily intended to raise the limits of liability contained in the convention andtherebyenable greater compensation to be paid to victims of oil pollution incidents.

The basic coverage (including that under the CLC) will be limited to a maximum of $US 140

million. But when the total quantities of contributing oil received in three Contracting States

equals 600 million tons or more, the limit of compensation will be increased to a maximum of

$US 208 million.

A new and simplified procedure for raising the liability limits is also included.

Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Materials, 1971

Adoption: 17 December 1971

Entry into force: 15 July 1975

In 1971 IMO, in association with the International Atomtic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), convened a Conference which adopted a Convention to regulate liability in respect of damage arising from the maritime carriage of nuclear substances.

The purpose of this Convention is to resolve difficulties and conflicts which arise from the simultaneous application to nuclear damage of certain maritime conventions dealing with

shipowners’ liability, as well as other conventions which placed liability arising from nulear incidents on the operators of the nuclear installations from which or to which the material in question was being transported.

The 1971 Convention provides that a person otherwise liable for damage caused in a nuclear

incident shall be exonerated for liability if the operator of the nuclear installation is also liable

for such damage by virtue of the Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy; or the Vienna Convention of 21 May 1963 on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage; or national law which is similar in the scope of protection given to the persons who suffer damage.

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976

Adoption: 19 November 1976Entry into force: 1 December 1986

The Convention replaces the International Convention Relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships, which was signed in Brussels in 1957, and came into force in 1968.

Under the 1976 Convention, the limit of liability for claims covered is raised considerably, in some cases up to 250-300 percent. Limits are specified for two types of claims -claims for loss of life or personal injury, and property claims (such as damage to other ships, property or harbour works).

With regard to personal claims, liability for ships not exceeding 500 tons is limited to 330,000 units of account (equivalent to $US 400,000). For larger vessels the following additional amounts (given here in dollar equivalents) will be used in calculating claims:

• l For each ton from 501 to 3,000 tons, $US 600 (approx.)• l For each ton from 3,001 to 30,000 tons, $US 400l • IFor each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, $US 300• l For each ton in excess of 70,000 tons, $US 200

For other claims, the limit of liability is fixed at $US 200,000 for ships not exceeding 500 tons. For larger ships the additional amounts will be:

• l For each ton from 501 to 30,000 tons, $US 200

• l For each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, $US 150

• l For each ton in excess of 70,000 tons, $US 100

In the Convention, the limitation amounts are expressed in terms of units of account. These are equivalent in value to the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), although States which are not members of the IMF and whose law does not allow the use of SDRs may continue to use the old gold franc (now referred to as ‘monetary unit’ in the Convention).

The Convention provides for a virtually unbreakable system of limiting liability. It declares that a person will not be able to limit liability only if ‘it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such a loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result’.

Other Subjects Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965

Adoption: 9 April 1965

Entry into force: 5 March 1967

Since the turn of the century the requirements of statisticians and the ever-increasing sophistication of the shipping industry itself have led to an increase in the number of national authorities taking an interest in the call of ships and personnel at ports.

In the last few decades, the lack of internationally standardized documentation procedures has imposed a heavy and increasing burden upon the industry’s personnel, both shipborne and ashore and caused considerable delays. To deal with the problems, IMO began work on these problems soon after its inception and in 1965 the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic was adopted.

In the last few decades, the lack of internationally standardized documentation procedures has imposed a heavy and increasing burden upon the industry’s personnel, both shipborne and ashore and caused considerable delays. To deal with the problems, IMO began work on these problems soon after its inception and in 1965 the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic was adopted.

The Convention’s main objectives are to prevent unnecessary delays in maritime traffic, to aid cooperation between Governments, and to secure the highest practicable degree of uniformity in formalities and other procedures.

The Annex to the Convention contains provisions relating to the arrival, stay and departure of ships and persons, health and quarantine, and sanitary measures for plants and animals. These provisions are divided into Standards and Recommended Practices, and the documents which should be required by Governments are listed.

The 1973 amendments

Adoption: November 1973

Entry into force: 2 June 1984

Amendments to the Annex were adopted in 1969 and 1977 and entered into force in 1977 and 1984 respectively. However, major improvements to the Convention were rendered virtually impossible by the cumbersome amendment procedure which required the positive acceptance of more than 50 percent of Contracting Parties. The 1973 amendments introduced the "tacit acceptance" procedure included in many other IMO conventions.

The 1986 amendments

Adoption: 7 March 1986

Entry into force: 1 October 1986

The new "tacit acceptance" procedure made it possible to update the Convention speedily and the 1986 amendents were designed primarily to reduce ‘red tape’ and in particular to enable

automatic data processing techniques to be used in shipping documentation.

The 1987 amendments

Adoption: September 1987

Entry into force: 1 January 1989

The amendments simplify the documentation required by ships including crew lists, and also facilitate the movement of ships engaged in disaster relief work and similar activities.

The May 1990 amendments

Adoption: May 1990

Entry into force: 1 September 1991

The amendments revise several recommended practices and add others dealing with drug trafficking and the problems of the disabled and elderly. They encourage the establishment of national facilitation Committees and also cover stowaways and traffic flow arrangements.

International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969

Adoption: 23 June 1969Entry into force: 18 July 1982

The Convention, which was adopted by IMO in 1969, is the first successful attempt to introduce a universal tonnage measurement system. Previously, various systems were used to calculate the tonnage of merchant ships. Although all went back to the method devised by George Moorsom of the British Board of Trade in 1854, there were considerable differences between them and it was recognized that there was a great need for one single international system.

The 1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention provides for gross and net tonnages, both of which are calculated independently. The gross tonnage is a function of the moulded volume of all enclosed spaces of the ship. The net tonnage is produced by a formula which is a function of the moulded volume of all cargo spaces of the ship. The net tonnage shall not be taken as less than30 percent of the gross tonnage. The entry into force of the Convention was expected to result in the eventual elimination of the shelter-deck type vessel.

There is only one net tonnage and its change is allowed only once a year. It applies to new ships in general from the date of entry into force of the Convention. New ships are defined as those whose keels have been laid or which are at a similar stage of construction on or after the date of entry into force.

Existing ships, if not converted, were enabled to retain their existing tonnage for 12 years after

entry into force. This is intended to ensure that ships are given reasonable safeguards in the

interests of the economic welfare of the shipping industry.

On the other hand a ship may be assigned the new tonnage if the owner so wishes. As far as possible, the Convention was drafted to ensure that gross and net tonnages calculated under the new system did not differ too greatly from those calculated under existing methods.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988

Adoption: 10 March 1988

Entry into force: 1 March 1992

The main purpose of the convention is to ensure that appropriate action is taken against persons

committing unlawful acts against ships. These include the seizure of ships by force; acts of violence against persons on board ships; and the placing of devices on board a ship which are likely to destroy or damage it.

The convention obliges Contracting Governments either to extradite or prosecute alleged offenders. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988

Adoption: 10 March 1988

Entry into force: 1 March 1992

The Protocol extends the requirements of the Convention to fixed platforms such as those engaged in the exploitation of offshore oil and gas.

International Convention on Salvage, 1989

Adoption: 28 April 1989Entry into force: 1 year after being accepted by 15 StatesStatus: 2 acceptances have been received

The convention is intended to replace an instrument adopted in Brussels in 1910. This Convention incorporates the "no cure, no pay" principle which has been in existence for many years and is the basis of most salvage operations today.

However, it does not take compensation into account. The new convention seeks to remedy this by making provisions for "special compensation" to be paid to salvers when there is a threat the environment.

This will consist of the salvor’s expenses plus 30 percent if environmental damage is minimized or prevented, but this can be increased to 100 percent in certain circumstances.

END OF PRESENTATION

THANK YOU

GOOD LUCK

NovAtel Supplies Reference Receivers for IRNSS

Ground Segment

December 23, 2013 By GPS World staff

NovAtel Inc., a manufacturer of GNSS precise positioning

technology, has announced an agreement with the Indian

Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to supply reference

receiver products for use in the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) ground segment. India-based Elcome Technologies Pvt. Limited, a sister company to NovAtel in the Hexagon Group of Companies, will provide local integration, training and technical.

The System: IRNSS Signal Close upSeptember 1, 2013 By Alan Cameron and Richard B. LangleyIRNSS Signal Close up By Richard Langley, Steffen Thoelert,and Michael Meurer The spectrum of signals from IRNSS-1A,the first satellite in the Indian Regional Navigation SatelliteSystem, as recorded by German Aerospace Centerresearchersin late July, appears to be consistent with acombination of BPSK(1) and BOC(5,2) modulation. Figure 1 shows that, centered at 1176.45MHz, the signal...

Out in Front: A Star Is BornAugust 1, 2013 By Alan Cameron

Welcome to the club, India, and happy Birth Day. With theJuly 1 launch of IRNSS-1A, India and the Indian RegionalNavigation Satellite System have officially joined the GNSSS(Global Navigation Satellite Systems Society). With full membership, however, come some society duties and responsibilities. Chief and first among these is to provide allother society members and interested parties with... read more

The System: IRNSS Success, GLONASS BellyflopAugust 1, 2013 By GPS World staff

IRNSS Success The Indian Regional Navigation SatelliteSystem (IRNSS) successfully launched its first satellite onJuly 1 from the Satish DhawanSpace Centre at Sriharikotaspaceport on the Bay of Bengal. An Indian-built PolarSatelliteLaunch Vehicle PSLV-C22, XL version, carried the 1,425-kg satellite aloft.

IRNSS-1A is the first of seven satellites that will make up the new constellation: four satellites... read more

IRNSS Signal in Space ICD Released

September 25, 2014 By GPS World staff

News courtesy of CANSPACE Listserv. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has released Version 1 of the Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System (IRNSS) Signal in Space Interface Control Document for the Standard Positioning Service.

The document provides information onthe signals and structures of the IRNSS system, including signal modulations, frequency bands, received power levels, the data structures and

their. interpretations, and user algorithms.

The System: GLONASS Fumbles Forward

Two April Disruptions Furnish

Fodder for Multi-GNSS

Receivers and Alternative PNT

In an unprecedented total

disruption of a fully operational

GNSS constellation, all

satellites in the Russian

GLONASS broadcast

Corrupt information for 11 hours, from just past midnight until noon Russian time (UTC+4) on April 2

(or 5 p.m. on April 1 to 4 a.m. April 2, U.S. Eastern time).