DRAFT MINUTES

ISTEC

Nautical Sub-Committee# 1

Wednesday 15th June 2016

INTERTANKO London Office

St Clare House

30-33 Minories

London EC3N 1DD

Table of contents

1Introduction

1.1LIST OF ATTENDEES

1.2ANTI-TRUST/COMPETITION LAW COMPLIANCE

1.3ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.4MINUTES from WG meeting online

1.5NOMINATIONS

1.5.1ELECTION of VICE CHAIRMAN

1.6WORKING GROUPS

2NAVIGATION

2.1ECDIS, UKC and CATZOC

2.1.1Action Points

2.2THIRD ECDIS ONBOARD

2.3S-52 AND PRESENTATION LIBRARY 4.0 DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION

2.4E-NAVIGATION

2.5WEATHER ROUTING

2.6REGIONAL EFFORTS TO PROMOTE SAFE NAVIGATION

2.7IHO MEMBERSHIP

3OPERATIONS IN PORTS & TERMINALS

3.1MOORING; EQUIPMENT STANDARDS, COMPATIBILITY AND OPERATION

3.1.1MOORING EQUIPMENT GUIDELINES

3.1.2IMO CORRESPONDENCE GROUP ON MOORING

4LOADING AND DISCHARGING OF OIL TANKERS

5SAFETY

6EXPERIENCE SHARING AND INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES

7UPDATE ON OTHER COMMITTEES OF INTERTANKO

8ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1AUSTRALIA - ECDIS COMPLIANCE

8.2UKC & AIR DRAFT

8.3ECDIS and ENOC

8.4ToR of the Committee

8.5Requests from NYK

8.6JOINING VIA VIDEO LINK

9NEXT MEETING

1Introduction

1.1LIST OF ATTENDEES

Name / Company / Comment
Pär Brandholm (Chairman) / Laurin Maritime / Chairman
Johan Gahnström / INTERTANKO / Secretary
Andrew Roberts / Teekay Shipping (Glasgow)
Pantelis Patsoulis / Euronav Ship Management (Hellas) Ltd
Michail Malliaros / Euronav Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Yiannis Giannakopoulos / Tsakos Columbia Shipmanagement
Rele Santosh / "K"Line Ship Management Co., Ltd / Via Video
Aleksandr Styskin / Stolt Tankers
Alexandros Arabatzoglou / Consolidated Marine Management Inc
Iosif Voutsinos / Almi Tankers S.A.
Andrey Vorobiev / ChartWorld GMBH / Via Video
Moisés De Gracia / Panama Maritime Authority / Invited observer
Phillip Belcher / INTERTANKO
Ajay Gour / INTERTANKO
Anup Singh / INTERTANKO
GIL-Young Han / INTERTANKO
Dragos Rauta / INTERTANKO
Philip Blanshard / INTERTANKO
APOLOGIES
Björn Schröder / Raytheon/Anshutz
Majid Al Suwaidi / ADNATCO
Anders Rydlinger / Transas
Satinder Singh Virdi / Singapore Maritime Academy
Linus Norström / Wisby Tankers
Mikael Hägg / Chalmers Technical University

1.2ANTI-TRUST/COMPETITION LAW COMPLIANCE

INTERTANKO’s Anti-Trust/Competition law Compliance Statement INTERTANKO’s policy is to be firmly committed to maintaining a fair and competitive environment in the world tanker trade, and to adhering to all applicable laws which regulate INTERTANKO’s and its members’ activities in these markets. These laws include the anti-trust/competition laws which theUnited States, the European Union and many nations of the world have adopted to preserve the free enterprise system, promote competition and protect the public from monopolistic and other restrictive trade practices. INTERTANKO’s activities will be conducted in compliance with its Anti-trust/Competition Law Guidelines.

The Chairman read out the anti-trust statement and the Sub-Committee noted it.

1.3ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The Sub-Committee noted and adopted the agenda with additional 3 points in the AOB section. The Chairman welcomed all to this, the Sub-Committees first meeting and noted that the committee was very well attended and encouraged an open environment for the discussions. He specifically welcomed the two members joining via video and hoped this would prove to be an efficient way to join the meeting for those unable to fly in.

1.4MINUTES from WG meeting online

The Sub-Committee took note of the minutes of the online meeting of the NAV WG, and noted their approval by correspondence.

1.5NOMINATIONS

There was one nomination received after the agenda was sent out. The nomination was for Capt.Moisés De Gracia, Panama Maritime Authority, and Chairman for IMO NAV WG. Capt. Moisés De Gracia was invited to the meeting as observer by the chairman.

The Sub-Committee accepted Capt. Moisés De Gracia as a member.

1.5.1ELECTIONof VICE CHAIRMAN

There were no nominations for the Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee. The members were requested to nominate for the positionofVice-Chair before the next meeting.

1.6WORKING GROUPS

There are no WG at present.

2NAVIGATION

2.1ECDIS, UKC and CATZOC

The chairman introduced the two subjects of ECDIS and CATZOC at the same time. He opened up the discussion with showing a presentation summarizing the subjects as concluded in the Navigation working group and further came with some suggestions.

Bridgework on radar overlaid ECDIS

One aspect that was discussed was a future possibility of having different class notation for different equipment level on ECDIS and Radar. This to enable owners that invest in equipment that enables radar overlaid ECDIS on the bridge could use a different way of work on the bridge, specifically not having to take manual fixes in the ECDIS. This was discussed but did not gain wide support. However, it could be looked into at a later date.

Definition of Vessel Safety Depth (VSD)

As part of the voyage planning process the VSD could be determined for each leg in accordance with company policy. The VSD may be defined as:

VSD = Draught + Squatd + Safety margin - Tided (including meteorological variances)

To calculate VSD and allow the ECDIS to automatically determine and set the appropriate parameters for navigation the following attributes of the leg between two waypoints should be required:

  • Static draught (manual input)
  • Squat that can be either automatically calculated or manually entered based on max squat for the leg.
  • Safety margin based on area setting and company requirements
  • Estimated Tide on the route leg (Tide can be automatically derived from data base or manually entered)

The CATZOC defined area should qualitatively be considered in the safety margin of the VSD. For any CATZOC area it should be possible to set a company/operator additional safety margin or include it in the company UKC policy

Important to note that VSD is time and speed dependent.

This was discussed in detail and there was a large support for this definition and to work for to use this definition rather than UKC alone. This should be a part of the INTERTANKO guidelines.

Pre-Defined Area Settings

Allowances for variable factors and local conditions should include, but not be limited to, the following:

  • The effect of squat.
  • Environmental conditions e.g.: the prevailing weather, height of swell, tidal height and range, atmospheric pressure, and changes in the density of sea and inland waters etc.
  • The nature and stability of the bottom (e.g. sand wave phenomena).
  • The vessel's size and handling characteristics, and increase in draft due to heel.
  • The reliability of ship's draft observations and calculations, including estimates of hogging or sagging.
  • The accuracy of Hydrographic data and tidal predictions.
  • Reduced depths over pipelines

Horizontal Safety Margin and “Go-Areas”

  • The system should allow selecting an additional horizontal safety margin (HSM) to the Safety Contour based on VSD that has been preset by company/operator in their policy document.
  • Dark blue = water inside of Safety Contour
  • Light blue = water between HSM and Safety Contour
  • White water = water deeper than HSM (“No Go Area”)

This was discussed as future point to collaborate with IHO on and no decision had been taken at this meeting.

Caution Mode

  • When a vessel navigates in an area where the available depth contour is shallower than the VSD the chart display will not provide information and alarms needed for a safe passage.
  • To circumvent this in a controlled manner some had been forced to partly disabling the anti-grounding functionality and so the Sub-Committee believed that a new “Caution Mode”mode for ECDIS is needed.

This was discussed as future point to collaborate with IHO on.

Software Updatesand Cyber Security

The secretariat informed that they have seen a draft of a BIMCO and CIRM guidelines on software updates. These are to be tested in a test environment before issued to a larger audience. These will be a help for members when they are issued.

Further to this, IMO has issued a circular on Cyber Risk Management that in essence is the guidelines that the industry has made and where INTERTANKO was co-author.

CATZOC

This is a subject raised in the Vetting committee as well as the here in the NautSC. There are a number of ways to address this issue. As a part of the short term solution the NautSC is to work on a set of guideline to members on this issue.

Bathymetric Data in Charts

This was taken up as a discussion point around safety contours not being able to be set close enough to a vessel’s draught. This is a discussion point to take with IHO.

INTERTANKO Guidelines on ECDIS

There was a discussion on whether the NautSC should collaborate with Witherby’s in order to incorporate the tanker specific guidelines into their ECDIS publication.

However, the Sub-Committee decided not to go down that route. Instead, INTERTANKO should developits own guidelines only.

The discussions around all subjects above were very interesting and can be categorized and summarized in the below timescale:

  • Short term (release INTERTANKO guidance in fall)
  • Medium term, Issue a Guide on navigation, ECDIS and UKC.
  • Long term, Influence on future development on standards.

2.1.1Action Points

Action Point 1 – Guidelines for Navigation and ECDIS

This action point was to be discussed at the start of the next meeting. However, to effectively get discussions going at the next meeting,members input on this subject are important.

Members of the NautSC to propose items for the INTERTANKO guidelines in time before the agenda notes for the next meeting.

Action Point 2 – Interim Guidelines on ECDIS

Develop where possible guidelines on:

  • CATZOC
  • UKC
  • Area Settings
  • Manual plotting on ECDIS
  • Safety Contour
  • VIQ assistance on ECDIS issues (to liaise with theVetting Committeesecretariat)

Target for completion of these are Autumn 2016, and will serve as a start of the more in depth guidelines later onas mentioned in Action Point 1.

Action Point 3–Collaborationwith IHO

Several points were discussed where a direct involvement of INTERTANKO with IHO seems to be needed. It was noted that many issues with regards to ECDIS standards for charts and how the upcoming standard for data transfer for E-Navigation etc. are agreedat IHO and adopted at IMOwith limited possibility to alter any decisions made in IHO. Therefore, the NautSC agreed that a direct involvement will be the right course of action.

The following, as laid out above, to be discussed and or worked with together with IHO:

  • Discuss the issue on CATZOC with IHO. Specifically, seek clearance on difference and/or similarities in accuracy between paper charts and ENCs. It should be a unified risk assessment regardless of whether the chart is paper or electronic. Seek clarification on why certain hydrographic offices choses to set all their ENCs to CATZOC as “U”. In particular to seek clarification as to why entire countries such as the US classify their charts as ‘U’. Such clarification should be done before meeting with the IHO.
  • Bathymetric data in Charts, specifically in ENCs.
  • Future development in IHO standards, Example:
  • Caution Mode
  • Go areas
  • Safety Contour
  • Manual plotting of positions
  • Safety Depth as a concept
  • Performance standards
  • E-Navigation standards like the S-100 series

Action Point 4 – IMO Work

The following issues should be monitored to make sure future developments are in line with the tanker industry:

  • IMO Performance standards on ECDIS
  • E-navigation

Action Point 5 – Cooperation with Witherbys

Decline the offer to collaborate onthe Witherbys ECDIS publication.

Action Point 6 – Cooperation with OCIMF

Invite the OCIMF secretariat to join the Sub-Committee as observers and if possible for the INTERTANKO secretariat to join the corresponding OCIMF Committee.

2.2THIRD ECDIS ONBOARD

This was discussed on how this should be documented onboard and how to deal with non-certified equipment. The sub-committee summarized that they cannot give guidance on non-certified equipment, but noted two points.

  • Non-certified equipment must be clearly marked as being “not certified” and “not for navigation”.
  • Non certified ECDIS exist already onboard member ships. Some examples in a range from route planning stations, training stations, fully functional ECDIS systems kept up to date but not being certified to iPads with navigation software and charts.

This could be includedin informationas part of the ECDIS guidelines to be developed.

2.3S-52 AND PRESENTATION LIBRARY 4.0 DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION

The Sub-Committee noted the delay of implementation to postpone for one year the transition period for software updates to existing ECDIS units to 31 Aug 2017 and the role of INTERTANKO in achieving this.

2.4E-NAVIGATION

The secretary first showed a video on what the IHO S-100 standard series is all about. (it can be viewed here). It was noted that in the IMO the S-100 standard is widely thought of as being the future standard to be used for ECDIS but also for communication of information between ship and shore and in future for bridge instrumentation and information displays.

It was noted that BIMCO and INTERTANKO secretariats have had initial discussions on possible joint work on some of the issues under the E-Navigation umbrella.

Capt. De Gracia gave a brief introduction to the current work in IMO on E-navigation. He mentioned that it has been discussed for a long time, and no real outcome has been reached. The process in IMO is to an extent fragmented and Capt. De Gracia recommended early involvement to ensure that the development is user driven.

A discussion around E-navigation took place and members raised concerns that they did not wish to see a new system onboard with the same kind of implementation issues as with the ECDIS.However there was also a large interest in what this potentially could give to the mariner onboard.The discussion concluded that cooperation with other bodies like BIMCO is the way to go.

Action Point 7 – Cooperate and follow up on E-Navigation

The secretariat should continue the work started with BIMCO, follow the E-navigation issue within IHO and IMO to gain early understanding and try to ensure that the process is user driven and for the benefit of the seafarer.

2.5WEATHER ROUTING

This item was referred to the sub-committee by ISTEC from ISTEC#49.

Some Charterers/Oil Majors are using specific Vendors/Software applications to carry out performance analysis for fuel, speed and time as well as checking compliance with the set Charter Party speed/consumptions warranties.

The main issue that membersface is the accuracy of weather forecasts and reports used by these vendors to assess the prevailing weather conditions during the voyage. It should be noted that even 1 Beaufort difference between the actual and the predicted weather could greatly affect the C/P compliance evaluation. Taking into account the above, the Sub-Committee agreed that weshould commence a discussion – as an industry – what are the minimum operational / technical / certification criteria for such vendors.

The chairman reported that he is involved in an EU project on this subject. He showed slides on the variation between various forecasting models (see below figure) and also that there has been a huge improvement in weather predictions over the years.

The chairman further noticed that IEC will issue a route exchange standard that can be used to interchange data between systems.

The figure shows various forecasting models and their relation and improvement over time.

The members of the Sub-Committee concurred with the suggestion of ISTEC, that this subject should be discussed by the Documentary Committee.

One member reported that on oneoccasion they had three different systems in use at the same time on the same ship.

Action Point 8 – Weather Routing

The Chairman, Capt. Pär Brandholm, to report back from the ongoing project as outlined above as appropriate.

Action Point 9 – Weather Routing

The Sub-Committee agreed to invite members to report experience with weather routing services, including challenges with the quality of the advices received. That may assist to map possible challenges which would allow the Secretariat to take up these with the individual service providers, as appropriate.

2.6REGIONAL EFFORTS TO PROMOTE SAFE NAVIGATION

The regional issues were noted and no action on those papers or initiatives were taken. However, the committee was positive to the actions taken as laid out in the agenda notes.

Singapore was mentioned as a place where there are issues to be raised with the authorities. One member discussed the anchoring situation in and around Singapore where sometimes vessels are anchored in what captains describe as potentially unsafe due to the distance between vessels, again other times, the anchorages are so busy that there are nowhere to anchor. The group noted the conflict with the two issues, but this should be discussed with MPA.

In addition to this it was raised that Singapore will seek an amendment to the collision regulations mandating the night signal of three green lights for vessels crossing a TSS. Although the members were positive to the intention with the lights, some concerns were voiced:

  • Some vessels may not have enough lights, and especially no spare lights since these are not currently mandated.
  • Concerns on when before crossing the lights should be switched on, and when to be switched off.
  • There are no daylight symbols that have the same meaning
  • It was raised as question or proposal, could there be an AIS marker for this purpose.

Action Point 10 – Regional issues, Singapore Strait

The secretary to liaise with our regional representative in Singapore to gather information on the Singapore straight anchorage situation, the future plans for anchorages and the TSS crossing green light developments at IMO and report back atthe next meeting for possible actions to be taken.

2.7IHO MEMBERSHIP

The sub-committee noted the information given in the agenda notes.

Action Point 11 – Secretariat to report on the progress of the membership of IHO with INTERTANKObefore the next meeting.

3OPERATIONS IN PORTS & TERMINALS

3.1MOORING; EQUIPMENT STANDARDS, COMPATIBILITY AND OPERATION