solas compliant navigation systems on naval...
TRANSCRIPT
SOLAS Compliant Navigation Systems On Naval Vessels
D C Bradley, A Scicluna
BAE Systems Australia Defence Pty Ltd, Williamstown, VIC 3016, Australia
[email protected], [email protected]
1) ABSTRACT
In addition to modern military naval vessels meeting all of their operational requirements,
the vessels are also being specified to meet commercial shipping registry classifications;
such as Lloyd’s Registry. Registration with a shipping registry requires vessels to be
compliant with commercial shipping standards. For navigation systems, commercial
classification means compliance with Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Chapter V
regulations.
This paper provides a background to the legal requirements of SOLAS Chapter V,
navigation equipment type approval, and Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
Marine Orders. The historical non-compliance of naval vessels, use of flag state waivers
and the current drivers behind the need for new warships to be registered and meet SOLAS
are discussed. This paper also examines the challenges of naval ship navigation system
certification including military Ships Inertial Navigation Systems (SINS) and Global
Position System (GPS) approval.
A typical navigation system example is provided representing the minimum equipment
requirements and the required interfaces between equipment. Additional aspects of a naval
navigation design are briefly discussed covering redundancy, Emissions Security
(EMSEC) and protecting classified data. The example also includes the typical additional
requirements on a military naval navigation system to provide data to other ships systems,
e.g. Combat System.
The paper also examines the commercial shipping trends of integrating navigation
functions in Integrated Navigation Systems (INS) and with other ship’s functionality in
Integrated Bridge Systems (IBS). The benefits of these systems are discussed and the
possible application to military naval vessels.
2) INTRODUCTION
The history of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) can be
traced back to the sinking of the Titanic. The first version of the convention was adopted in
1914 and prescribed the required emergency equipment and safety procedures. The
International Maritime Organization (IMO) was formed to bring international shipping
conventions into an international framework. The first task of IMO was to update the
SOLAS convention resulting in the 1960 convention. In 1974 the SOLAS convention was
completely updated including a simplified process for future amendments.
Naval vessels are using commercial navigation equipment more regularly as the drive to
reduce costs and provide an equivalent level of safety as commercial shipping. This brings
challenges in interfacing commercial equipment to military combat and control systems.
There is also a challenge of proving to regulators that military equipment provides at least
the same level of safety as the commercial equivalents.
3) MARITIME COMPLIANCE REGIME
Australian Maritime Safety Authority Marine Orders 21
The Navigation Act 19121 provides the Chief Executive Office of Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA) with the authority to make Marine Orders. The Navigation Act
1912 defines which vessels are covered by the act and the Marine Orders define the
detailed technical requirements that the vessels must comply with. Marine Orders also
provide the implementation of SOLAS. Marine Orders – Part 212 provides the
requirements for Safety of Navigation and Emergency Procedures and is presently at
Issue 7.
For the navigation systems, Marine Orders – Part 212 refers to SOLAS Chapter V
3
regulations which are discussed in the next section. Marine Orders – Part 212 requires that
type approvals for equipment that SOLAS mandates to be fitted to the vessel. These
functional requirements for type approvals are contained in IMO resolutions and circulars
referenced from Marine Orders – Part 212 Appendix 3. The specific requirements of the
IMO resolutions and circulars are discussed in the type approval section below.
SOLAS Chapter V
SOLAS Chapter V3 identifies the requirements for the safety of navigation. The chapter is
divided in to several regulations that cover all aspects of navigation. The chapters
particularly relevant to the vessel’s navigation system are:
• Regulation 17 – Electromagnetic compatibility;
• Regulation 18 – Approvals, surveys and performance standards of navigation
systems and equipment and voyage data recorder (VDR);
• Regulation 19 – Carriage requirements for shipborne navigational systems and
equipment; and
• Regulation 20 – Voyage Data Recorders (VDR).
Regulation 17 outlines the requirement for marine equipment to be designed and tested for
electromagnetic compatibility taking in to account IMO Resolution A.813(19)4.
Regulation 18 requires that mandatory navigation equipment (defined by Regulation 19
and 20) to be tested and type approved to specific IMO resolutions and circulars.
Regulation 19 identifies the navigation equipment that is required to be carried by a vessel.
The type and quantity of equipment depends on the Gross Tonnage of the vessel as shown
in Figure 1.
Regulation 20 covers the requirement for vessels engaged on international voyages to be
fitted with a VDR (dependent on the size and type of vessel).
Figure 1, SOLAS Mandatory Electronic Navigation Equipment Summary
Type Approval
A type approval provides the Classification Organisation with a level of confidence that
equipment complies with the required IMO resolutions and circulars. The International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has taken the majority of the equipment resolutions
and circulars and derived test standards to allow third party independent test agencies to
test navigation products in a consistent manner.
In addition to the specific functional and performance requirements of each type of
equipment there are also general IMO resolutions that apply to all equipment, for example
with IMO Resolution A.813(19)4 and A.694(17)
5. Compliance to these general
requirements is shown by testing to IEC 609456. IEC 60945 covers Electro-Magnetic
Compatibility (EMC), environmental and safety requirements.
Warship Non-Compliance
Regulation 1 of SOLAS Chapter V3 allows Governments to have exemptions for warships,
naval auxiliaries and other non-commercial government ships from SOLAS Chapter V3.
However these vessels are encouraged to act in a manner consistent, so far as reasonable
and practicable, with the requirements of SOLAS Chapter V3.
As a result naval vessels generally follow the procedures of SOLAS Chapter V3 and fit
similar equipment, however it is likely that naval vessels do not have all the equipment
required by SOLAS Chapter V and where the equipment is of military supply it is unlikely
to be type approved.
4) WARSHIP COMPLIANCE
Drivers For Future Compliance
The development of “Naval Rules” by classification societies such as Lloyd’s Registry has
provided a route for governments to have naval vessels assessed and classified against a set
of common requirements. This provides flag state authority with an independent review of
a naval ship design against ‘best of class’ requirements.
The Lloyd’s Registry Naval Rules7 is divided into different notations; the main notations
applicable to navigation are Safety of Navigation and Communications (SNC), Superior
Standard of Navigation (NAV) and Single Bridge Watchkeeper (NAV1). The SNC
notation is performance based with a set of goals against each section. In general
conformance against the SNC notation can be achieved by compliance with SOLAS
Chapter V3 regulations 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 34.
NAV and NAV1 notations are both aimed at reduced-manning bridges (single operator for
NAV1) and are requirements based standards. The NAV notation, which is a requirement
for the Canberra Class, provides increased equipment requirements compared to SNC
notation and specifies requirements for bridge physical layout and alarm systems. NAV1
notation has additional requirements including a Bridge Warning System (BWS), the
integration and management of alarms across navigation, communications and power.
Military Equipment Type Approval
The majority of the navigation system needs of a naval ship can be met with IMO type
approved equipment, however there are a couple of areas where specialized military
products will be required.
Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers have become the standard positioning system
for many uses including ships. The civilian maritime market has a large number of type
approved receivers for both the NAVSTAR and GLONASS global navigation systems that
include Very High Frequency (VHF) radio receivers for the reception of differential
corrections.
The military market is more specialised with the majority of GPS receivers either in a card
format, e.g. GPS Receiver Application Module (GRAM); or targeted more at the portable
role, e.g. Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR). Whichever type of receiver is
selected, it will be required to be marinised and include displays to provide GPS position,
performance and warning indicators to the navigator.
Due to the nature of military operations, GPS receivers are also connected to Controlled
Reception Pattern Antennas (CRPAs) that have null-forming capabilities to reject
deliberate jamming and other forms of interference. Again these products were not
specifically designed for marine usage and require a degree of packaging to make them
suitable for the marine environment.
These factors result in a bespoke GPS made up of equipment from different manufacturers
and a certain amount of custom integration. Obtaining type approvals is an expensive and
time consuming activity and is unlikely to be done; instead the ship designer/systems
integrator will be required to prove equivalence to the IMO GPS resolutions,
MSC.112(73)8, and general requirements for shipborne equipment, A.694(17)
5, to both the
classification society and the flag state authority. These resolutions include requirements
for position performance, minimum displays and environmental performance.
The other typical piece of military navigation equipment installed on naval ships is a Ships
Inertial Navigation System (SINS). SINS are required to accurately stabilize the vessel’s
mission systems with respect to attitude and position. For the navigation system the SINS
provides an accurate source of heading that exceeds the IMO resolution performance
requirements for gyro compass systems, A.424(XI)9. Again, it is unlikely that the SINS
will be type approved and the ship designer or systems integrator will need to prove
equivalence to the IMO resolution for gyro for performance and environmental
requirements.
BAE Systems is presently generating equivalence documentation for GPS and SINS for the
Canberra Class. The equivalence includes assessments of the GPS and SINS used on the
Canberra Class against the functional requirements of the IMO resolutions, comparison of
military GPS receiver performance against IMO GPS and gyro performance requirements
and comparison of the military environmental standards against IEC 609456.
5) EXAMPLE NAVIGATION SYSTEM
Navigation System Aspects
An example of a typical modern naval navigation system with Lloyd’s Register
Classifications SNC and NAV notations is shown in Figure 2 for a vessel of 50 000 Gross
Tonnage. Ideally, all of the equipment would be type approved to the applicable IMO
resolutions, however it’s common that the naval vessels will require greater accuracy and
additional functionality. Typically, a naval vessel would consist of the following type
approved equipment:
• 3 GHz and 9 GHz navigation radars each with Automatic Radar Plotting Aids
(ARPA)
• Automatic Identification System (AIS);
• VDR;
• Electromagnetic speed log for speed through water;
• Doppler log for speed over ground;
• Echo sounder(s);
• Autopilot, either heading or track control; and
• Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS).
The positioning systems are military supply and unlikely to be type approved and would
consist of:
• Military GPS (capable of using commercial C/A code and military P(Y) code); and
• SINS.
In some cases a standalone type approved Differential GPS (DGPS) may be provided on
the bridge. On a naval vessel, the navigation system would also include a meteorological
subsystem to supply wind and barometric information for aircraft and combat system
operations.
Interfacing between the navigation components will be via National Marine Electronics
Association (NMEA) 018310 / IEC 61162
11. The internal interfacing includes:
• SINS providing heading and integrated GPS-SINS position to the navigation radars,
ECDIS and AIS;
• Electro-magnetic log supplies speed through water to the navigation radar and
ECDIS to allow drift calculations to be performed;
• AIS providing track information to the ARPA for display and correlation with radar
tracks;
• Navigation radars providing ARPA and AIS tracks and radar video to the ECDIS;
and
• All systems provide critical data and radar video to the VDR for recording
Figure 2, Example Navigation System
External Communications
External systems require various sources of navigation input as shown below in Table 1.
Table 1, Navigation System Typical External Communications
In addition to supplying the required data any data distribution system has to convert the
data in to the required format. Different external systems will require data over different
bearers including analogue (voltage, current or pulses), synchro (115 V 400 Hz) and
various digital formats.
Special Requirements For Naval Ships
There are some specific naval vessel requirements that impact the design of the navigation
system. First is the storage of classified information on commercial equipment. Generally,
current known navigation information is not classified, however route planning, and track
log information is considered classified. The VDR is an obvious example of equipment
that records navigation information that may be classified (ship’s position) and needs to be
controlled. Less obvious is that ECDIS incorporates a recording mechanism and equipment
such as GPS may also have a position log. The location of the equipment that stores the
data needs to be considered and the appropriate security put in place.
The second related issue is Emissions Security (EMSEC). Where classified data is
displayed or transmitted along an interface the equipment and installation should meet the
requirements of the Australian Government Information Security Manual12. This requires
classified equipment and interfaces to be physically and electrically isolated from un-
classified equipment. This impacts the installation design on the ship and needs to be
considered early in the design.
Finally, Emission Control (EMCON) needs to be considered for navigation transmitters,
specifically radars and AIS. The functionality of included power and standby controls
needs to be understood to ensure that inadvertent transmissions are not possible. Where the
functionality is not clear additional power switches or antenna switching in to dummy
loads may be required. However, this needs to consider the impact to equipment type
approvals.
6) FUTURE TRENDS
RAN Regulatory Framework
Following the recent Rizzo Report13 and the obligations under the new Work Health and
Safety (WHS) Act14 the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has approved the use of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organistaion (NATO) Naval Ship Code (NSC)15, described below. The
initial vessel to implement the NSC will be HMAS Choules and the Naval Flag
Administrator will be responsible for the development of implementation strategies for all
new and existing vessels.
The NSC15 or Allied Naval Engineering Publication (ANEP) ANEP77 was developed by
ten navies and six classification societies from around the world, including Australia. The
maintenance of the code is the responsibility if the International Naval Safety Association
(INSA). The NSC15 states the aim of the code is to provide a “cost effective goal based
standard for naval ship safety and environmental assurance, benchmarked against statute
and accepted by the global naval community and inter-government bodies”. The code is
divided into a number of chapters each covering different aspects of ship design. Each
chapter has a set of goals that have been developed by INSA which provides an equivalent
standard of safety to a commercial ship. Each chapter also has functional and performance
requirements and a description of common approaches to verification of the requirements.
NSC15 Chapter IX covers navigation and seamanship. Chapter IX regulation 0 lists the
goals of the navigation systems including independent navigation, awareness of fixed and
moving hazards, receiving weather forecasts, measuring and interpreting environmental
data and assisting other vessels and persons in distress. Regulation 0 also covers goals on
reliability and failure, requiring that essential safety functions are maintained following a
single system or equipment failure. Finally, possibly one of the most important goals, is
that the navigation systems’ essential safety functions are not to be dependent on the ships
combat system being available.
NSC15, Chapter IX Navigation and Seamanship, Regulation 1 covers the functional and
performance requirements of the navigation system. This chapter requires the ship to be
designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of SOLAS.
Future revisions of the NSC should have the navigation requirements updated following
working group activities in this area.
Technology Drivers
In the last ten years there have been several changes to navigation systems. These have
included Integrated Bridge Systems (IBS), Integrated Navigation Systems (INS) and
improvements to equipment interfacing. Initially there was no definition of what an IBS
and an INS were and manufacturers could integrate functions without any specific
requirements for the integrated system. Equipment interfaces are starting to move away
from point to point NMEA 018310 serial communications to network based topologies.
The IMO resolution MSC.64(67)16 Annex 1 defines an IBS as a system that supports at
least two of the following operations: passage execution; communications; machinery
control; loading, discharge and cargo control; or safety and security. The IBS should
comply with the individual equipment resolutions and be as effective as individual
equipment. This requires redundant system design with fall back operation for essential
functions. This aligns well with the standard naval requirement for redundant systems and
networks. The IMO resolution also requires IBS systems to have a transitional form of
power from main to emergency source. Again, naval vessels typically have significant
Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) requirements and an IBS fits well with naval
requirements.
IMO MSC.252(83)17 defines the purpose of an INS to “enhance the safety of navigation by
providing integrated and augmented functions to avoid geographic, traffic and
environmental hazards” and requires an INS to “combine, process and evaluate data from
connected sensors and sources”. This is very well aligned with how the combat system
integrates data from multiple sensors.
The move to networked interfaces is being driven by the increased complexity in system
integration and greater need for connectivity, two of which are described below. NMEA
have developed NMEA 200018 based on Controller Area Network (CAN) system. CAN
was initially designed for use in the automotive industry and has high levels of robustness.
Several navigation manufacturers are distributing NMEA 0183 messages over Internet
Protocol (IP) based networks. Although both systems use different network technologies,
both allow data to be distributed from multiple sensors to multiple receivers using a
network topology and both have significantly higher bandwidth than RS-422 serial
communications. IP based networks onboard naval vessels can be used for more than just
NMEA 018310 distribution, it offers accurate transmission of video, timing and
management systems; for this reason it’s likely that IP based networks will become the
standard for navigation system communications on naval vessels.
7) REFERENCES
1 Australian Government, 1913, “Navigation Act 1912”.
2 Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010, “Marine Orders Part 21 Safety of
Navigation and emergency procedures”, Issue 7.
3 International Maritime Organization, 1974, “International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS)”, as amended.
4 International Maritime Organization, 1995, Resolution A.813(19) “General
Requirements for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) for All Electrical and
Electronic Ship’s Equipment”.
5 International Maritime Organization, 1991, A.694(17) “General requirements for
shipborne radio equipment forming part of the global maritime distress and safety
system (GMDSS) and for electronic navigational aids”.
6 International Electrotechnical Commission, 2002, IEC 60945 “Maritime navigation and
radio communication equipment and systems - General requirements - Methods of
testing and required test results", Fourth Edition.
7 Lloyd’s Register, 2011, “Rules & Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships
2011”.
8 International Maritime Organization, 2000, MSC.112(73) “Revised Performance
Standards for Shipborne Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver Equipment”.
9 International Maritime Organization, 1979, A.424(XI) “Performance Standards for
Gyro-Compasses”.
10 National Marine Electronics Association, 2008, NMEA 0183, Version 4.0.
11 International Electrotechnical Commission, 2010, IEC 61162 “Maritime navigation and
radiocommunication equipment and systems - Digital interfaces”, Edition 4.0.
12 Department of Defence, 2011, “Australian Government Information Security Manual”.
13 Rizzo P J, July 2011, “Plan to Reform Support Ship Repair and Management Practices”.
14 Australian Government, 2011, “Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act 2010”.
15 International Naval Safety Association, Naval Ship Code (ANEP-77), Edition 2.
16 International Maritime Organization, 1996, MSC.64(67) “Recommendations on new
and amended performance standards”.
17 International Maritime Organization, 2007, MSC.252(83), “Adoption of the Revised
Performance Standards for integrated Navigation Systems (INS)”
18 National Marine Electronics Association, NMEA 2000 “Standard for Serial-Data
Networking of Marine Electronic Devices”, Edition 2.2.
9) BIOGRAPHIES
David Charles Bradley
David is a Combat Systems Engineering Manager at BAE Systems.
David graduated from Salford University, UK in 1990 with an Honours Degree in
Electronic and Electrical Engineering.
David spent 11 years at Royal Aerospace Establishment (and subsequent DRA and DERA)
conducted research and flight trials on helicopter navigation and flight control systems. For
the majority of this time David specialised in Naval Aviation and the Helicopter Ship
Dynamic Interface.
David spent 14 months at DSTO Fishermans Bend as part of the Anglo-Australian
Memorandum Of Understanding on Research conducting simulation trials on helicopter
ship operations before deciding to remain in Australia.
David joined Vision Systems (now Xtralis) in 2001 and worked as the lead systems
engineer and product manager for the development of smoke detection and voice
evacuation products.
David joined BAE Systems in 2009, initially working on ANZAC class update projects
before joining the Australian LHD project as the lead of the navigation team.
Andrew Scicluna
Andrew is a Combat Systems Engineer at BAE Systems.
Andrew graduated from RMIT University in 2007 with a Bachelor of Electronic
Engineering.
Andrew joined BAE Systems in January 2008 as a graduate engineer on ANZAC class
upgrade project to conduct test and integration of the navigation data distribution system in
preparation for the Anti Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) project.
Andrew joined the Australian LHD project navigation systems engineering team in 2010.