June/July 2000
                          Compuship : Features: June/July 2000
 
          AIS at last?
          Organisations such as IMO and IALA are finally beginning to
          talk seriously about Automatic Identification Systems, but
          more people should get involved in the debate, says Fred Pot
 
          Automatic Identification System (AIS), in its simplest form, consists
          of a VHF radio transmitter that sends out a ship's name, position,
          course and speed, along with other data. It also has two radios that
          receive this information from nearby ships thus allowing them to be
          plotted as vectors ('targets’) on an electronic chart. Like radar,
          positions are updated frequently enough to be useful in avoiding
          collisions, but unlike radar AIS can 'see' around hills and eliminate
          blind spots caused by coastal topography.

               A coast state authority can receive, plot and log this information
          if it establishes AIS base stations and repeaters along its coast. It
          can also use AIS to interrogate a ship for its identity, the nature of
          its cargo, its destination and its ETA. The Marine and Port Authority
          of Singapore (MPA), intends to take this one step further; it wants to
          receive complete voyage plans, including intended routes.

               AIS can be used much like any modem to send and receive
          digital information including e-mail and DGPS/GLONASS
          corrections, but its capacity is limited to about 9.6 kilobits per
          second per VHF channel and, so far, only two channels are being
          used. AIS' range is about 10 to 15 nautical miles, but this range will
          shrink when its capacity is overloaded.
 
          Proposed Requirements
          It is likely that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will
          require all ships constructed after July 2002 to be outfitted with an
          AIS transponder. By July 2003 all passenger ships and tankers will
          be required to carry one, followed by all other ships over 50,000 GRT
          by July 2004. Smaller ships will be required to carry one by July
          2007.

               Between 2002 and 2007 authorities will transmit AIS position
          updates for ships within VTS radar range that have yet to install AIS.
          These updates will not only consist of position data but also the
          ship's static and voyage-related data.

               Non-SOLAS boats will not be required to carry an AIS
          transponder, nor are authorities planning to provide them with a
          'virtual’ transponder, which is unfortunate because these boats are
          much more likely than SOLAS ships to be involved in near-misses
          and collisions.

          Unresolved AIS policy Issues
          To improve safe navigation, coast state authorities are pushing hard
          for the establishment of AIS 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.

               They will also be able to handle significantly more traffic with
          their existing VTS Centre staff, as an AIS test by the Port of
          Singapore has proven. In 1999 MPA completed a pilot project to
          evaluate the performance of such a system and the results from the
          pilot test indicated that AIS ship transponders could practically halve
          the amount of time spent by a VTS operator on verbal
          communications.

               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, on the other hand, have been reacting to rather than
          leading this process. ECDIS suppliers have only recently woken up
          to AIS. Ship operators, too, should involve themselves with planning
          the roll-out of AIS or be faced with a fait accompli: an AIS standard
          that is designed by and for authorities.

               It is plausible that flag and port states will police installation of
          AIS transponders, but it is less clear whose duty it will be to 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
          ensure that this information is correct and entered in a timely
          fashion? VTS Centre staff? Ship's log inspectors? Pilots?

               Fortunately, ship operators will derive direct and visible safe
          navigation benefits from installing, operating and maintaining an
          onboard 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 do not operate AIS properly or do not meet the carriage
          requirement, but authorities should realise that this will require
          significant enforcement resources. Even if these can be marshaled,
          the voluntary co-operation of ship operators will still be needed to
          make AIS work. A further impediment is that even willing ship
          operators will not always be able to control what the bridge team
          does. Therefore, in order to successfully implement AIS, it needs to
          be designed to provide significant benefits to the bridge team.
 
          The affect on pilotage requirements
          Most pilot organisations exposed to AIS are in favour of its
          deployment. They see AIS as a way to enhance the professionalism
          of their craft. By taking responsibility for the validity of static and
          voyage data in the AIS transponder, interpreting information received
          from AIS (target position updates, environmental conditions, the
          status of aids to navigation, etc.) and 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 services, especially in remote and
          foul weather areas, where ships currently employ dual pilots for
          extended periods.

               Remote pilotage is already being provided by MPA using radar
          and VHF. MPA, with IMO's support, intends to expand this service
          through AIS to nearby international waters.

               There are, of course, thorny legal issues associated with a
          remote pilot assuming any level of control over a ship's movements,
          but William O'Neil, Secretary-General of IMO, is promoting the legal
          model of air traffic control of remote pilotage as perfectly acceptable
          for the maritime world.
 
          Unresolved Technical Issues
          There are a number of technical issues about AIS that have yet to
          be resolved. One of them is which frequency to use in the US’
          coastal waters. In early 1999 the US Federal Communications
          Committee (FCC), sold all maritime VHF channels to MariTel for
          about US$7m, 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.

                The US Coast Guard (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 (DSC
          - ITU RM 875 and IEC standard 61993-1), USCG has forced IMO,
          IALA, ITU and IEC to incorporate remote frequency assignment
          (RFA) through DSC into the UAIS standard. USCG, however, is not
          receiving support from authorities in other countries to enforce this
          costly option because other states do not need it. For them AIS1
          and AIS2 are perfectly acceptable.

               USCG, of course, doesn't need RFA either, even if it ends up
          with a patchwork of AIS channels, because such a patchwork can
          be programed into AIS so that transponders know which frequency
          to use. There are provisions for this specific functionality in the
          proposed AIS standard. Nevertheless, USCG is expected to use
          port state control in US ports to enforce RFA through DSC.

               So far the major transponder manufacturers have ignored the
          RFA part of the proposed standard but may offer it as an extra cost
          option if it becomes apparent that USCG is successful in enforcing it
          through inspections, which is not necessarily 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,
          especially because it will leave too much open to interpretation.

               USCG may try to promote transponders that include RFA 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 RFA issue there really is no single worldwide
          standard for Universal AIS. This is causing a growing rift between the
          US and the rest of the world. It has also had an adverse effect on
          AIS implementation because ship operators will wait as long as
          possible to let the dust settle before committing resources.

               Another unresolved issue is how to display AIS targets on an
          electronic chart. After a test of AIS on cruise ships in British
          Columbia during the summer of 1999 (see www.uais.org), bridge
          teams expressed that it was essential that the screen remain
          uncluttered. They felt that radar and (virtual) AIS targets all
          representing the same ship needed to be consolidated and that AIS
          targets should be labeled with only their call sign or a short
          abbreviation of the name in small print (for target tracking and to
          assist with contacting vessels by VHF radio). They also felt that a
          target's course, speed, range, bearing, CPA, TCPA, rate of turn,
          draft, route, ship type, LoA, full name and other details should be
          available but only in a new window that would be opened by clicking
          on an AIS target icon.

               Also unresolved is AIS participation by non-SOLAS boats (tugs,
          fishing boats, yachts). Current rules do not prohibit them from doing
          so, but it will depend on the cost and the benefits to be gained. With
          increasing participation the cost will decrease and the value of
          joining the network will increase exponentially with each additional
          participant.

               But will boats carry an AIS-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 AIS
          transponders. The needs of boats are just too different. Boats do not
          have rate of turn sensors and do not need remote AIS frequency
          assignment. However, they do need position updates from SOLAS
          ships and other boats for collision avoidance and they do want
          e-mail, weather charts, electronic chart updates and even web
          access.
               Boats' radio modems are not likely to operate on an AIS
          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 the network they use (GSM, PCS,
          Teledesic, etc), and there will probably be gateways between the
          AIS network and boats' radio modem networks. These gateways will
          be one way only (SOLAS to 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.
 
          What next for ship operators?
          Following radar, VHF and (D)GPS/ECDIS, 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 offer AIS benefits to the ship operator and the OOW,
          such as:
 


          Other reasons for ship operators to involve themselves are more
          defensive:
 


          The International Chamber of Shipping, INTERTANKO, the
          International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) and others should
          clearly formulate and forcefully present ship operators' interest in
          AIS policies and change the current course taken with its
          implementation to better fulfil 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 shipowners'
          organisations to achieve these goals.
 
           Fred Pot is Principal of Marine Management Consulting, Seattle,
           USA, an AIS consultancy for ship operators and suppliers of
           transponders and ECDIS systems. He can be reached via
           www.uais.org

 
 
          COMPUSHIP June/July 2000
 

 [ Homepage| Magazine | Subscribe | Reports | Ship-shore Communications | E-commerce | Port Systems |
 Simulation & Training | Software | Vessel Operations | Add your Website | containershipping.com ]