There was comment of a more low-key but nonetheless forceful kind from Nick Lemon of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority during the morning. Lemon seemed a believer – a firm advocate even – of the IMO’s eNavigation strategy and said the hydrographic community had much value and leadership to contribute to its work.
“Hydrograhic Offices – as well as IHO and IALA – can give guidance and leadership to IMO on this issue but that’s been lacking and the process has been the poorer for it. At times, it’s been like trying to nail jelly to a tree.”
This was in large part because the human factor is in danger of being overlooked in the rush towards new technology but he said what really concerned him was the lack of defined back-up for satellite position input.
“e-Loran is expensive and only covers half the world. For eNav to proceed, this issue is going to need closer attention. The regulators and the generators can co-exist but they need to share a vision about ENCs and ECDIS – we need to maintain the service, not just the equipment.”
October 21, 2009 at 10:17 am |
Regarding a need for leadership, the main message I was intending to convey is that the Hydrographic community have much value and leadship to contribute to the IMO’s work on e-Navigation and it would be good if they were even more engaged than they are at present. IALA is already well engaged on e-Navigation and is bringing significant leadership.
Also, I did not mean to suggest that there was an leadership vacuum on the part of the IMO, but certainly the Hydro community could provide more input and I think the manufacturers might also be able to bring more to the table, in terms of some initiatives for standardisation, without compromising innovation.