To improve safe navigation, "Competent Authorities", as they are called in IMO parlance, are pushing establishment of AIS hard because it will allow them to greatly expand the areas they control beyond those currently covered by VTS radar stations at a small incremental cost. It allows them to:They will, also, be able to handle significantly more traffic with their existing VTS Center staff, as the AIS test by the Port of Singapore has proven.
- Enforce adherence to Traffic Separation Schemes
- Control vessels’ speed and course (VTIS) within the limits of a ship's requirements to abide by Collision Regulations
- Log vessel movements and VHF traffic (Remote Voyage Data Recorders).
For these reasons, authorities participating in IMO, IALA, ITU and IEC delegations and committees are leading the charge to establish AIS. Ship operators and suppliers of traditional navigation equipment have, at least so far, been reacting to, rather than leading this process. Only recently are ECDIS suppliers waking up to AIS. Ship operators, too, should involve themselves with planning roll-out of AIS or be faced with a fait accompli: An AIS standard that is designed by and for authorities.
One of the authorities active in establishing AIS is the Unites States Coast Guard (USCG).
The USCG is in a very difficult position as far as AIS is concerned. The US Federal Communications Committee (FCC) in early 1999, sold all Maritime VHF Channels to MariTel for about US$7MM, including VHF Channel 87B. Furthermore, VHF Channel 88B is currently used by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. Almost everywhere else in the world, VHF Channels 87B ("AIS1") and 88B ("AIS2") are dedicated to AIS.
USCG has now been charged by the FCC to negotiate with MariTel to obtain channels that can be allocated to AIS in US waters. Even though there seems to have been an understanding that MariTel was to save one set of channels for AIS, it is doubtful that USCG will be able to obtain the same channels for AIS in all US waters. Because of this situation and because USCG was the primary sponsor backing an older, now abandoned, AIS technology that used Digital Selective Calling (ITU RM 875 and IEC standard 61993-1), USCG has forced IMO, IALA, ITU and IEC to incorporate Remote Frequency Assignment through DSC into the UAIS standard. USCG, however, is not receiving support from authorities in other countries to enforce this expensive option because other states don’t need it. For them AIS1 and AIS2 are perfectly acceptable.USCG, of course, doesn’t need Remote Frequency Assignment either, even if it ends up with a patchwork of AIS Channels, because the OOW can manually switch to a different set of AIS channels when entering an area where AIS1 and AIS2 are not available, just like an airline pilot. Nevertheless, USCG is expected to use Port State Control in US ports to enforce Remote Assignment through DSC.
The major transponder manufacturers have, so far at least, ignored the Remote Frequency Assignment part of the proposed standard but may offer it as an extra cost option if it becomes apparent that USCG is successful in enforcing Remote Frequency Assignment through inspections. The latter is not at all a given. If the IEC standard, as is expected, turns out to be unnecessarily convoluted to satisfy the many diverse political/commercial interests of IEC Member states, then it will not catch on with transponder manufacturers. Already, the two current major AIS transponder manufacturers (TransponderTech and Marine Data Systems) have signed an interoperability agreement that may well, de facto, supersede the yet to be published final IEC standard.
The USCG may try to promote transponders that include Remote Frequency Assignment, as the only ones acceptable. It currently seems, however, that there is only one, small, US-based transponder manufacturer that plans to offer this capability.
Because of the Remote Frequency Assignment issue there really is no single worldwide standard for "Universal" AIS. It is causing a growing rift between the US and the rest of the world. It, also, has an adverse effect on AIS implementation because ship operators will wait as long as possible to let the dust settle before committing resources.
It is plausible that Flag and Port States will police installation of AIS transponders. Less clear is who will enforce transponder operation and maintenance, i.e. ensuring that transponders are turned on during the voyage and that they work properly. Apart from static data (call sign, name, etc.), voyage specific data (draft, tow configuration, destination, ETA, hazardous cargo information, etc.) will have to be kept up to date in the transponder. Who, apart from the bridge team, is in a position to enforce that this information is correct and entered in a timely fashion? VTS Center staff? Ship’s log inspectors? Pilots?Fortunately, like radar and (d)GPS, ship operators will derive direct and visible safe navigation benefits from installing, operating and maintaining an on-board AIS transponder. Therefore, few are expected to skimp on the required resources, irrespective of official carriage requirements.
Port and Flag State enforcement of AIS will reduce the number ships that don’t install AIS or don’t operate it properly, however, authorities should realize that it will require significant enforcement resources and that even if these can be marshalled, ship operators’ voluntary cooperation will still be needed to make AIS work. A further impediment is that even "willing" ship operators can’t always control what the bridge team does or when. To successfully implement AIS, it needs to be designed to provide significant benefits to the bridge team.
But what about the interim period when some ships will and somewon't have a transponder? After all, AIS implementation is currently planned to stretch over a 6 year period starting in 2002 and may well take longer.For SOLAS ships within VTS radar coverage that have yet to install AIS, authorities can be expected to transmit AIS updates for them as if they did have an AIS transponder. These updates will not only consist of position data but also include the ship’s static and voyage related data.
So far, few if any authorities are planning to do the same with non-SOLAS boats, which is unfortunate because these are more likely to be involved in near-misses and collisions with SOLAS ships and are not expected to carry AIS transponder like devices any time soon.
Participation by boats will depend on cost and benefits. With increasing participation the cost will decrease and the value of joining the network will increase exponentially with each additional participant (Bob Metcalfe’s Law).But will boats carry a UAIS-like transponder? It is predictable that in the near future, VHF and GPS manufacturers will offer a (digital) radio modem of some sort as an extra cost option for their products to differentiate themselves in the market. It is improbable, however, that these modems will be UAIS transponders. Boats’ needs are just too different. Boats don’t have rate of turn sensors and don’t need remote AIS channel assignment. They do need position updates from SOLAS ships and other boats for collision avoidance, they do want e-mail, both with other boats and with the internet, they do want differential GPS corrections and they do want other services a radio modem could provide such as berth reservations, weather charts and electronic chart updates, even web access.
Boats’ radio modems are not likely to operate on a VHF frequency. Moreover, there probably won't be enough bandwidth available on AIS channels to accommodate them all. Boats will most likely have to pay for bandwidth they use (GSM/PCS, Satellite, other?). There will be Gateways between the UAIS network and boats’ radio modem networks. These gateways will be one way only (SOLAS -> boats), unless ship operators decide that their ships need to receive AIS-like position updates from boats for collision avoidance reasons. The field here is still wide open.
How will AIS affect Pilotage requirements?Most pilot organizations exposed to AIS are in favor of its deployment. They see AIS as a way to enhance the professionalism of their craft. By being responsible for checking the validity of static and voyage data that was entered into an AIS transponder, by being responsible for interpreting information received from AIS (target position updates, environmental conditions, the status of Aids to Navigation, etc.) and by sending and receiving vessel traffic related e-mails, pilots solidify the legitimacy of their services.
Ship operators, on the other hand, believe that AIS will bring about less expensive "pilotage-like" service, especially in remote and foul weather areas, where ships currently employ dual pilots for extended periods. Remote pilotage is already being provided by the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) of Singapore using radar and VHF. MPA, with IMO’s support, intends to expand its service through AIS to nearby international waters and what MPA can do in the Mallacca Straits, could certainly be applied elswhere.
There are, of course, thorny legal issues associated with a remote pilot (a VTS staff member or a member of a pilot’s association) taking any level of control of a ship’s movements. But, William O’Neil, Secretary-General of the IMO, for one, is promoting the air traffic control (legal) model of remote pilotage as perfectly acceptable for the maritime world.
Following radar, VHF and (d)GPS/ECDIS, now AIS promises to significantly enhance the OOW's awareness of his immediate environment, while reducing the need for VHF communications.The time has come for ship operators to insert themselves into the debate, to ensure that AIS will deliver on this promise, to demand that the same authorities that are pushing AIS carriage requirements so hard for their own reasons, offer AIS benefits to the ship operator and the OOW. Benefits such as:
Other reason for ship operators to involve themselves are more defensive:
- Remote pilotage-advisory services to replace conventional pilotage requirements
- Real time observations of tides, currents and visibility integrated in ECDIS
- Automatic identification of all, not just SOLAS targets
- Elimination of VHF reporting requirements to VTS/VTIS
- Differential GPS corrections via AIS in areas where direct receipt from beacons is not available
- Status of Aids to Navigation (displaced bouys, etc.)
The International Chamber of Shipping, INTERTANKO, the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), etc. should clearly formulate and forcefully present ship operators' interest in AIS policies and change the current course taken with its implementation to better fulfill its potential as an aid to navigation to the OOW. The Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, for one, is actively involved but needs support from all international ship owners organizations to achieve these goals.
- AIS will make it easy for authorities to identify ships traversing their waterways. They could very well use this information to levy user fees to finance AIS and other ATON infrastructure.
- Make simple less expensive non-DSC transponders legally acceptable
Return to home page