SAFETY4SEA Focus - Q1 2018

14 SAFETY 4SEA I issue 01 I Q1 2018 safety4sea.com ARTICLE T he official introduction of ECDIS in shipping industry helped solve many problems (paper workload, easy planning and monitoring, real time information availability, etc.), as well as created some, most of which are related to human behavior and the way ECDIS systems are used. To this effect, IMO issued performance standards for systems and training stan- dards for seafarers. The STCW was amended pushing seafarers with bridge watch duties to be trained through the IMO model course 1.27 for Generic ECDIS training and be type familiar with the onboard system, through a company esta- blished procedure. Most people typically think of human error as “operator error”, in which the mariner makes a slip or mistake due to misperception, faulty reasoning, inattention, or de- bilitating attributes such as stress, or fatigue. However, there are many other important reasons for hu- man error. Factors such as man- agement, policies which pressure master & crew to stay on schedule at all costs, poor equipment de- sign which impedes the navigator’s ability to perform safe navigation duties, improper or lack of mainte- nance, improper or lack of training, and inadequate number of crew to perform a task, are some of the reasons that enhance the human “ability” to error. Common findings that lead to or are related to ECDIS assisted acci- dents, are as follows: ► Planning The most common is the pre- request settings regarding depth. ECDIS requires the safety depth to be determined as value by the user, in order to mark and color the sea area which is considered to be safe for navigation for the specific ves- sel at the specific time of transit. If this value is not set correctly, the system provides a colored area for navigation which is NOT free of dan- gers. If the value is lower than the accurate safety depth, then the sea area free of dangers may include depths less than the vessel’s safety depth. If the value is more than the accurate safety depth then the area through which the vessel is go- ing to navigate will be colored dark blue and dangers will not be easily identified during passage. In both cases the risk of grounding is high. ► Settings As by definition the safety depth is related to vessel’s draught and tide, it should be predicted in which areas different setting should be used. ► Alarm handling Alarms on display are either disabled or without sound or worst just acknowledged without ade- quate feedback. Lack of knowledge on the alarm handling process or alarm interpretation may lead to such actions. Mariners may not be familiar with management and re- action when an alarm displays on the screen. In some cases criti- cal time is also lost while trying to find what went wrong. Additionally, some watchkeepers were not able to react on the identified alarm and steer the vessel to safe waters. ► Alarm fatigue ECDIS, as a system, produce a great amount of alarms, for dif- ferent reasons, which should be handled by OOW. During a 4 hour watch, the OOW may request to respond to many alarms on ECDIS display related to safety parame- ters set during passage planning. Human element in ECDIS related accidents