200544 Leave Waypoints to Port

The insurance industry has seen a number of GPS assisted accidents, not only collisions but other casualties arising from a failure to apply appropriate corrections. Many navigators now make use of computer software to generate an "optimised" track. The result is that their vessels are all heading for the same waypoints on similar, or reciprocal tracks. Inevitably, this can lead to dangerous close encounters.

I believe that there is one quite simple answer which could be adopted from aviation waypoint practice. That is to establish a common rule or code of conduct to leave all recognised waypoints to PORT. Depending on the amount of sea room available, this might be a few cables, and in open water a mile or two from the waypoint. This off-set from an optimised track for all vessels heading towards the same waypoint would allow more room for manoeuvre and almost all near-misses created by common waypoint navigation could be avoided.

The other debates about the isolated use of GPS as opposed to bridge wing compass and radar range, lookout and bridge team management are features regularly featured in SEAWAYS and at conferences. But in addition to emphasising best practice and correct observation of the COLREGS, how about a new motto: WAYPOINTS TO PORT.

I would welcome some feedback on this useful suggestion. RB.

Readers' Feedback on MARS 200544 Waypoints to Port

1
The suggestion to pass waypoints to port is not only a good idea but would be easy to implement as it is just a continuation of normal navigational practice. We already 'drive on the right' at sea and normally leave fairway and isolated danger marks to port so this idea can be seen as a continuation of that practice. But would it really be that easy. My own observations of navigational practices over the last few years would indicate that it wouldn't.

I am often standing by or working with drill ships/semi-subs in isolated areas clear of established oilfields. Often these locations are in or near busy shipping routes. Over the last few years I have had to request numerous vessels with a zero CPA to alter course. In at least two notable circumstances, one in the Arabian Gulf and one in the South China Sea, the Officer of the Watch has replied in the negative as the rig is on his course line. When the circumstances have then been adequately explained that the rig has 8 anchors ranged with buoys over a mile from the rig location, the OOW then has to call the Master to seek permission to alter course. On one occasion this took so long that the vessel ended up inside the anchor buoy pattern despite being warned when he was over 6 miles away. Perhaps a better idea would be to instruct officers doing the passage plan to offset the waypoint in the first place. This would achieve the same result without taxing the OOW's thought processes too much.

Would following either of the two options possibly have helped avoid the collision mentioned in the Cepheus J/Ileksa report? I doubt it very much. What one vessel considered a decent offset from the waypoint would not be vastly different from the next vessel. Unless they were very near the waypoint, and had offset ideas at least a couple of cables apart, any difference in offsets would hardly be noticeable in the track each vessel was following. Applying either of the two options above would only aid in reducing reciprocal heading situations.

2
In the mentioned MARS report, a navigator suggests the introduction of a new motto: keep waypoints to port. This seems like a sensible idea. However, it's fighting symptoms. The real problem lies in the deteriorating quality of today's crew and officers. If we continue on the road we're on right now, in a couple of years the practical knowledge of ship's officers will get even worse and could be carried out by automatons or monkeys. We would have to teach them the tricks and the ships can be exploited at minimum cost. A very dangerous situation indeed, because if the situation deviates from the routine task, a solution to the problem will not be available to these untrained people.

In my opinion, seafarers who use "rules of thumb" without understanding the backgrounds - without proper training - are becoming more common every day. In this example, instead of using the motto (read: rule of thumb) to keep waypoints to port, seafarers should realize that routeing computers are a good tool, but can never function as a primary means of voyage planning. It's the input of the well trained and experienced navigator that makes a voyage plan safe!

3

I circulated the suggestion about leaving way points to port and it received a mixed response. Most thought it a good idea but there were drawbacks.
However, it was suggested that where this is a real problem (voyages from Dondra Head / Malacca Straits / Singapore / S.China Sea) the problem could be alleviated if there were more routeing schemes. I feel that this is valid, especially off Pu Rondo and given that the TSS's have been extended in the Malacca Straits, extending them further to include notable choke points would be an improvement in safety within the area.
Full routeing is not needed, only partial schemes that are designed to split the traffic and encourage two way flow with less crossing. This will also mean that the ships going towards the common way points would at least be going in the same direction.