GTMaritime’s Global Commercial Director Mike McNally (pictured below) explains the history and direction of maritime e-mail in this Q&A interview.
MM Yes, before then messaging with ships was done mostly by Telex. Ships with an Inmarsat A terminal had direct telex capability and for other ships communication was by radiotelex with a coast station as an intermediary.
When Inmarsat C came along it was initially used for Telex. Telex was used for a long time after maritime e-mail became an option for the simple reason there was a confirmation of receipt – something that e-mail still doesn’t have – and also because it had legal recognition whereas e-mail did not. That’s changed since and e-mail has taken over for some communications.
Another advantage of Telex was that it could be on a live connection and could be used for chat, whereas Inmarsat C messages were sent to and from ships on a store and forward basis.
To start with, Inmarsat C did not work with attached files. So, whatever needed to be communicated had to be within the text of the e-mail. This was a little different to what was happening ashore where attachments were commonly used for sending more information than was in the covering e-mail.
When attachments were used the maximum allowed was around 25MB. A lot for text but not so for data files.
In general, the amount of information being passed around as e-mail attachments has skyrocketed. And so has the need for urgent response. So we have seen a move towards more data and faster transmission demands from users in the maritime industry.
MM One thing is clear is that the prediction that use of maritime e-mail would fall off as VSAT become more prevalent hasn’t happened. Arguably that’s because when an operator made the move to VSAT, the fact that a service was being paid for meant that the natural impulse is to make as much use of it as possible.
Although a lot of data is now sent as pure data, a very large amount is still sent as e-mail attachments.
A number of clients have told us that they couldn’t have increased data transmission as much as they have if they had continued using L-Band services. Maritime communication costs are still a big item in the budget and as the move to VSAT has grown, some service providers who offer both VSAT and L-Band have protected their income by increasing costs for non-VSAT services.
MM We can see that the use of e-mail is not declining. Just recently we had the first instance of the number of maritime e-mails over our service alone reaching one million messages in a day.
That was exceptional but as the growth rate continues it will only be a matter of months before that figure is reached regularly. People are using e-mail more for chat purposes because they now have continuous connectivity and that can increase the number of e-mails. On the global fleet scale the number of e-mails sent through ship communication systems could well exceed 10 million per day
On data we see that a lot of ships now have dedicated connections for data for things such as performance monitoring, updates for equipment and documents and the like. The amount of data is growing but a lot of customers still want to send data via e-mail, so we facilitate that as well with our services.
MM We do offer facilities for separating out crew e-mails from which we could estimate the spread but we find that is getting less and less use and crew are increasingly being invited to use the ship’s standard system and so it is not always possible to know what e-mails are business-related and which are private.
It is important for ship operators to put some parameters in place for crew so that large file attachments are limited as that can impact system efficiency. This is because in most systems, the pipeline for e-mail is separate from the data pipeline and large e-mail files can clog the e-mail facility.
We can work with operators to set up a system that best suits their profile which can include limiting file size attachments for each individual or originating e-mail address onboard so that only appropriate users have the ability to attach large files or have priority at busy times.
MM The cyber threat is very real, we have stopped over 200,000 malware attacks in the last six months. Spam is bad enough and many of these are seemingly innocuous, but a significant amount will have links that are damaging and open up system vulnerabilities.
It is possible to identify what appears to be spam and block addresses and domains but inevitably that will also block some genuine traffic and so systems cannot be too rigid as it would cause problems with important e-mails being blocked.
MM Thinking about the three types of threats, spam, malware and phishing, malware can be blocked and quarantined by systems once the threat has been identified and defences built in.
With spam and phishing there is a judgement to be made. No system can be made that identifies and blocks them all so systems are not foolproof. The crew is then the ultimate defence.
Crews can be taught to recognise the threats. We do offer services to clients that help crew identify threats by sending harmless e-mails that test the recipients’ knowledge and actions.
There is no threat to the system if the wrong decision is made but it is recorded. In one case a customer requested these checks, and they were done multiple times over a period.
At the outset we recorded 40% penetration where an e-mail was responded to but by the second round most threats were being identified and penetration was almost completely eliminated. It was noticeable that e-mails that appeared to come from regulatory bodies were responded to most readily.
MM We recognise that companies see value in homogenising their maritime e-mail. They like to have their company domains and prefer sending everything through that rather than having disparate systems for different applications. The systems they may be using can be any of several, for example Microsoft, Google or any other.
We can integrate this into our system so that whatever their current structures are and what they want them to be can all be customised and integrated giving all the benefits of our e-mail management and security but fitted within their corporate set up.
Ships have rarely been allowed to come and go as they please when trading between different nation states or even ports within the same state. There has always been some form of formalities to complete and dues or tariffs to be paid.
The formalities generally involve identifying the ship, its master and owners, cargo details and voyage history including previous and following ports.
In historic times, it would have been the ship’s master that completed the formalities, but regular traders may have appointed a local factor or agent to work for them arranging cargoes and dealing with authorities. With the coming of telegraphic, radio and telex communications the master’s role in completing formalities diminished further leaving most of the work apart from signing official documents to the agent.
Today, there seems to be a gradual return to ships masters having to make the reports and indeed recent IMO developments around the FAL Convention have been to accelerate this movement. It is claimed that direct reporting by the ship – not a huge problem with modern satellite telecommunications – is removing the bureaucratic burden on the ship although those with practical experience of port agency would dispute that argument.
Alongside the conventional formalities, modern ships are increasingly being called on to provide even more information for security and environmental purposes.
Security can cover perceived political or terrorist threats with the latter having been very much to the fore in recent years. A prime example of this is the US Coast Guard requirement for an advance notice of arrival/departure – which currently must be submitted electronically in the form of electronic notice of arrival and departure (eNOAD).
The notice of arrival origin dates back to 1972 and was originally a ship safety and environmental requirement that had to be submitted by the vessel’s agent 24 hours prior to a vessel’s arrival. Following the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001, the 24-hour requirement was stretched to four days (96) hours in order for the authorities to be better able to assess what if any threat a ship posed. Initially agents were allowed to submit the notice much as they had done previously but gradually the submission requirements and the scope of information have evolved. The submission requirements for eNOAD is are very strict with penalties for delays or errors.
Ensuring the eNOAD is submitted correctly and in its entirety, requires a vessel to have a reliable and robust communication connection or else to make use of a system such as GT Maritime’s GTMailPlus.eNOAD.
The eNOAD form comprises several pages to be completed and whilst many other commercially available offerings can only be edited online, GTMailPlus.eNOAD can be completed offline and only requires an email connection when ready to submit.
The US was a little ahead of the rest of the world with the eNOAD but it is now almost three years since the mandatory requirement for national governments to introduce electronic information exchange between ships and ports came into effect from 8 April 2019, under the FAL Convention. Depending upon the country involved this would previously have been done either by using paper forms presented to a customs office or by emailing or faxing electronic documents to a designated office. Although the FAL convention talks of exchange between ships and ports, the information can be submitted by port agents.
The FAL convention encourages the use of the ‘single window’ concept, to enable all the information required by public authorities in connection with the arrival, stay and departure of ships, persons and cargo, to be submitted via a single portal without duplication. However, the obligation to create systems for the electronic interchange of information does not refer specifically to a ‘single window’, so governments can use systems other than it to comply. Conceivably that could include a requirement in a given country for several authorities such as customs, immigration, health and police or coast guards to demand specific information be given to them directly.
The EU and the UK are both proponents of the single window concept. In the EU, Regulation (EU) 2019/1239 establishes a European Maritime Single Window environment (EMSWe). This aims to improve maritime transport efficiency by reducing administrative burden, introducing a simplified digital information system to harmonise the existing national systems and reduce the need for paperwork. The EMSWe is a network of maritime national single windows with harmonised reporting interfaces and includes data exchanges using SafeSeaNet and other systems. A deadline of 2025 is incorporated into the directive.
Reporting anything related to the environmental aspect of ships directly by the vessel itself while at sea is not yet a legal requirement at an international level although some states will require notice of pollution incidents in their territorial waters. That said, treating of ballast water, operation of oily water separators and exhaust scrubbers is increasingly required to be logged onboard and the details can be requested by a PSC inspector at a following port call.
In order to demonstrate their green credentials, more and more shipping companies are turning to digital services to not only record operations but also to plan them so as to avoid unintentional breaches of requirements.
Many of these services are online systems and will therefore require some form of communication to shore. This will normally be to the service providers’ servers or to the ship’s owners but it is also possible to make the information available to other parties such as port and national authorities, agents and charterers.
As decarbonisation in the shipping industry takes off, information can also be used to meet report requirements for the EU’s MRV and the IMO DCS systems for monitoring fuel use and emissions. When the IMO’s CII comes into effect in 2023, constant monitoring of a ship’s fuel use will enable proactive measures to ensure it does not end the year falling into the D and E bands that would require rectification and a subsequent tarring of the ship’s reputation.
Monitoring is best done on a daily basis and that requires information to be communicated ashore.
There has been a lot of talk in recent years about Big Data in shipping and how it has the potential to transform the maritime industry but is it possible that traditional data and in particular important data is more important to overall operating efficiency and decision making?
Ships and the shipping industry have always generated lots of data which has been used by ship operators for a variety of purposes but mostly aimed at monitoring vessel performance and gaining a competitive advantage by getting maximum efficiency from their assets, cost reduction at ports, planning vessel maintenance and reducing fuel consumption.
Operating ships is a complex business and differs between sectors. Although it is recognised that around 90% of world trade involves carriage in ships, the demands of the liner sector, where ships can carry goods for thousands of shippers intent on satisfying consumer demands is very different from say the crude oil tanker sector which is a far less complex system involving far fewer ports and traders.
The bulk sector is different again with shipping companies favouring one or more trade types but needing to switch between several to ensure the ship remains profitable. Passenger ships – whether cruise or ferries – are another sector with entirely different operating needs.
Implementing big data is almost certainly of more use to the liner sector where the shipping and logistics industry can make the best use of big data analytics to predict future trade patterns but as has been demonstrated in the last two years, a single event can rapidly change conditions. Almost no one could have foreseen the pandemic and its impact on both shipping and data quality.
The port congestion that has occurred this year as the shipping industry began to recover has forced many major shippers to reconsider their approach to logistics and there is now a big debate over whether the “Just in Time” principle for trade is still valid. In the future, the data gathered from the shipping and logistics industry during the pandemic may help avoid similar problems if such an event occurs again, but in the short term the impact may actually cause many to question the validity of the claims made for big data.
For the majority of ship operators regardless of sector, data concerned with ship operation is the most valuable type of data concerned as it is with vessel performance, operational efficiency and fuel consumption. A lot of the data gathered from ship sensors on the engine, cranes, and in the holds and tanks is potentially useful for equipment manufacturers making use of advanced data processing techniques for discovering hidden patterns in equipment behaviour that could avoid costly problems caused by a developing fault that might have been overlooked using traditional data interrogation methods. Fuel consumption data also aids decision making on decarbonisation efforts and for ships over 5,000gt affected by the EU and IMO fuel monitoring and verification regulations can form the basis for the reporting function.
Once all of this data would have consisted almost entirely of completed forms and reports. Today, modern communication systems allow for non-traditional data to be sent in real time. This can be in the form of videos or photographs highlighting a problem with equipment that is impacting overall operational efficiency in some way and enabling informed assistance to be given to help rectify.
Ship data is needed by many of the shore based staff in shipping companies. The operations department will need real time data as contained in the daily position reports so as to determine future employment operations. The human resources department needs to keep an eye on crew changes, wages and expiring certificates that may need to be arranged.
Here again the pandemic has initiated a changing attitude to conventional business practice. More people are being forced to work remotely, and this has certainly increased the volume of data that is being generated. More to the point, whereas staff would once have discussed issues face to face, they are now being forced to communicate using Teams or some other form of video conferencing and also sharing documents and data by way of email.
These new work methods are in their infancy and increase the need for communication systems that carry cyber threats that have to be taken into consideration. Remote working also means that better management of data is needed. Whereas a physical file would normally be left with one person at a time, electronic data can be worked on simultaneously by several employees. That may imply improved efficiency, but it brings a risk of confusion with different versions of files and documents in circulation.
What is needed is a better means of controlling the data flow. Products such as GTReplicate make it possible to manage the flow of many data feeds ship to shore, shore to ship and even tying the ship into cloud based storage like Sharepoint.
GTReplicate provides a solution to the replication of data between ship and shore, reducing time and administration required by IT, which ultimately can lead to lower costs and greater levels of compliance / assurance. Changes made to master files and documents on shore can be updated or replaced fleetwide, with delta replications ensuring only the amended data is transferred to the vessel.
The tool allows secure exchange of data across fleets without interruption, built in features within the application provides the user with the ability to modify transfer rates, ensuring large updates do not interfere with the connectivity experience of the crew and can scale to various connectivity scenarios.
Maritime cyber security probably was not high on shipping companies’ list of business priorities over the last month. With the COP 26 conference in Glasgow and the IMO MEPC 77 meeting taking place, it was environmental regulation and its impact on operations alongside supply chain disruption caused by the pandemic affecting operations that were occupying shipping companies’ attention.
However, a wave of cyber incidents and breaches of management systems around the world, including at one of the leading risk management organisations, highlights the severity of the cyber threats and the need for cyber risk management to be taken more seriously than it already is.
The most recent attacks began on Halloween when around 60 Greek shipowner clients of ship management specialist Danaos Management Consultants became victims of an apparent ransomware attack. The cyber attack reportedly blocked their communications with ships, suppliers, agents, charterers and suppliers, while some correspondence files were lost. Clearly this would have a negative impact on operations.
Danaos contacted their clients to support them, suggesting they back up all critical remaining files to an external hard drive as a contingency measure. According to some reports, several of the ships affected were unable to make use of their normal communication systems and needed to contact port agents, suppliers and others by way of using different email addresses.
Since the beginning of this year, IMO regulations have required that maritime cyber security is addressed in shipping companies’ safety management systems and has published guidelines to support them in this process. Several other international maritime bodies have also issued guidelines and many training companies have devised special courses for security officers and crew.
Much of the training material has been directed at protecting critical systems against threats emanating from crew use of communications equipment and lax control over access to ship data and digital systems such as ECDIS.
Whilst large companies – especially those that have experienced cyber attacks – will probably have taken this seriously, a high proportion of operators will have made little real effort beyond including a few meaningless words in company procedures. That could conceivably be the case with the Danaos clients.
So it is perhaps a wakeup call to the maritime industry that the victim of another of the most recent cyberattacks was classification and risk management specialist Bureau Veritas, which has undoubtedly audited and approved cyber risk and information security in many shipping companies’ management companies management systems.
The attack on BV prompted it to issue a press release which merely confirmed the attack saying “The maritime cyber security system of Bureau Veritas detected a cyber attack. In response, all the group’s cyber security procedures were immediately activated. A preventive decision has been made to temporarily take our servers and data offline to protect our clients and the company while further investigations and corrective measures are in progress. This decision generates a partial unavailability or slowdown of our services and client interfaces.” It went on to say that its incident response procedure had been triggered.
Underlining the fact that many organisations are likely unprepared in cyber security matters, BV had in January this year acquired a stake in an independent service company specialising in cyber security services. The company said that as a result of increased threats and regulations, testing, inspection, and certification services for cyber security were an emerging market sector.
Understandably, BV did not publicly reveal full details of the cyber incident’s impact or how its control systems had been breached. Presumably, stakeholders needing to access BV’s systems for booking surveys and services or verifying a ship’s status were assisted directly.
Just days after the BV cyber breach, another classification society – DNV – announced that it too was to acquire a cyber security specialist organisation. In its announcement DNV said, “The two companies will join forces with the aim to build the world’s largest industrial cyber security practice, defending critical infrastructure in maritime and other industrial sectors against emergent cyber threats. Threats to industrial cyber security are becoming more common, complex, and creative.
The maritime industry witnessed a 400% increase in attempted attacks between February and June 2020 alone, according to Naval Dome (An Israeli intelligence organisation that has an interest in marine matters).
As well as mentioning the financial costs to shipping companies, DNV also said that according to technology research company Gartner, cyber criminals will go beyond making attacks for financial gain this decade, and progressively weaponise industrial control systems to cause harm to human life.
“Maritime systems and assets are now at higher risk of new forms of cyber-attacks, as their control systems become increasingly connected. Life, property and the environment are at stake. DNV is investing significantly in helping our customers build a powerful force of defence. By joining forces with Applied Risk, we aim to build an industrial maritime cyber security powerhouse to support the sector in managing these emerging risks,” said Remi Eriksen, Group President and CEO, DNV.
Eriksen’s warning is particularly pertinent to owners of newbuildings which are now being built as ‘Smart Ships’. The initial aim of the concept of concept – which is now at least a decade old – was a technology response to energy efficiency and e-nNavigation initiatives whereby the software controlling power management and navigation technology along with digital control systems on a vessel would be integrated so as to better respond to changing conditions and reduce fuel use and emissions.
Now that the very real threat of cyberattacks has been realised, shipbuilders are now looking to class societies to approve the digital control systems as being resilient to cyber threats. Various class societies have developed Cyber Secure class notations and given approval in principle to smart ship designs.
Having just received an AiP for its SVESSEL smart ship solution from BV, Hyun Joe Kim, vice president of Korean shipbuilder Samsung Heavy Industries expressed a similar sentiment to many other shipbuilders saying, “Strong cyber security is key to enable shipping to move on to the next level of digitalised and connected ships. For years, SHI has been at the forefront of innovative design and equipment, helping our clients address the risk of cyberattacks while complying with the current rules and regulations.”
Maritime cyber security involves more than just shipping companies and their vessels with other related stakeholders such as ports and cargo interests also under threat. Some national governments and maritime industry bodies have recognised that maritime transportation and the supply chain are critical systems that need protection.
In the same way that the International Safety Management Code was initially about physical safety and working practices, so the International Ship & Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) was about physical threats to assets and infrastructure. Both have now taken on a cyber security dimension.
Earlier this year, the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), a major actor in operational matters, issued its Cyber security Guidelines for Ports and Port Facilities. The guidelines were drawn up by maritime cyber security specialists to serve as a crucial, neutral document for senior executive decision makers at ports who are responsible for safeguarding against cyber security risks as well as ensuring the continued business resilience of their organisations.
The document aims to assist ports to establish the true financial, commercial & operational impact of a cyber-attack. It also is intended to help make an objective assessment on their readiness to prevent, stop and recover from cyber incidents.
Pascal Ollivier, Chair of IAPH Data Collaboration Committee and President of Maritime Street and who was the driving force behind the new Guidelines said “The digitalisation of port communities means ports will need to pay increased attention to maritime cyber security risks”.
In November, Singapore’s MPA announced a sector-wide maritime cyber security exercise to put the sector’s coordination on cyber security incident management, emergency response plans, and crisis communications to the test.
The exercise would be conducted over the course of three days in a hybrid format involving all actors in the supply chain. Some 90 participants from MPA, terminal operators PSA Corporation and Jurong Port will be present with shipping company, Pacific International Lines also taking part.
The exercise focuses on the cyber-physical implications of potential cyber-attacks and the increased risks in data theft and loss. The scenarios will cover data leak, ransomware, web defacement, distributed denial of service (DDoS), supply chain attacks, and compromise of critical maritime and port infrastructure and systems.
Niam Chiang Meng, Chairman of MPA, said, “The maritime industry is undergoing rapid digitalisation. It is imperative to better prepare against the threat of cyber-attacks which have become more sophisticated. As the world’s busiest transhipment hub and a key node in the global supply chain, the maritime sector in Singapore will be more vulnerable if it is not prepared to deal with such cyber security threats. I am glad that the exercise has brought together our partners to test not only our readiness, but also enable better coordination in crisis response amongst all stakeholders in the maritime sector should an incident occur”.
News of the exercise came shortly after a Singapore-based shipowner reported a data breach after a cyberattack. No further details were given beyond the company involved saying it had notified the appropriate authorities. Singapore’s government has strict rules on data breaches that include a mandatory requirement to report every instance.
Government action on maritime security depends in many cases on the importance that countries put on maritime transportation. Many will merely put into national law, the recommendations of the IMO while others will go further.
Panama is a small nation but its importance to the maritime industry cannot be understated. It is notionally the home of more merchant ships than any other state and it is also the location of the Panama Canal – a vital artery for global trade.
In November 2021, the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA) established its Cyber Incident Voluntary Reporting Scheme (CIVRS). This is an initiative aimed at helping the authority to better understand the cyber threats that vessels face and seeks effective measures to control these risks.
The PMA has reached an understanding with Japanese class society ClassNK which has agreed to provide its knowledge and experience in ship operations while also analysing information collected from the CIVRS to help the PMA further ensure maritime cyber security.
The incidents and initiatives mentioned above are by no means the only action the shipping industry has taken to reduce the cyber threat. Indeed, they have all come within a period of around three months and indicate the increasing problem of cyberattacks and the operational importance some within the shipping industry are putting on understanding key issues and means to reduce or eliminate cyber risks or at least secure their business interests as best they can.
Unfortunately, there are other pressures on ship operators and limited resources are being stretched in trying to meet all of the demands the international community is putting on the maritime industry. Some have called the push to decarbonise ships a trillion-dollar challenge.
Shipping companies get little sympathy from the public or national governments when the perception is that cybercrimes only impact company finances while the environmental impact of vessels is sometimes very visible.
Nevertheless, the world relies on maritime transportation for the wheels of commerce to keep turning and the impact of cyber threats on world trade and safe and secure ship operation is a key message the industry needs to focus on regardless of other demands put upon it.
Shipping is frequently described as a conservative industry that is slow to embrace new technologies. In fact, this is not true especially when it comes to the matter of ship communications. Ships were communicating with the shore via radio from 1899 although initially messages were sent using morse code rather than voice. By the late 1970s, satellite communications were being used by a small number of commercial vessels and many more military ships.
Obviously technological change is only adopted once it has reached a stage where it can meet the unique demands of the maritime industry and in particular prove its reliability and robustness under the harshest of conditions. If shipping has been slower to embrace some aspects of modern technology, it is often because the difficulties and high cost of ship communications across vast distances has meant that ship operators devised ways of minimising the amount of communications needed for commercial purposes.
Few ship operators or their crews are concerned with the high science and engineering of the satellites themselves, but they do need to understand the fundamentals of satellite communications and the radio spectrum.
Satellite communication is in principle no different from radio communication and in fact both systems operate in an identical manner making use of electromagnetic waves. Conventional radio equipment is intended for ship communications between two points only except when a distress signal is being sent. Radio clearly has one characteristic that has been a restricting factor and that is the signal has a very limited range in comparison to satellite networks. While some radio signals can bounce off the ionosphere extending the range this is not as effective as bouncing signals using satellites.
A satellite is an intermediate device in orbit above the earth that enables transmission of data to a ship or receiving data from a ship regardless of the different positions on the surface of the globe of the two parties. The other party can be a shore office or another ship.
All satellites make use of a beam which is a pattern of electromagnetic waves received or transmitted by the satellite. The transmission from a satellite has a defined pattern and the beam can be wide or narrow covering a large or small area on earth. Using a system of varying frequencies and alignment of antennas onboard the satellite, each satellite can have several beams within which all or most of the satellite’s power is concentrated.
The antennae on the ship are rarely stationary due to the constant movement of the vessel when under way and thus require the dish to be mobile in all dimensions. The dish itself is hidden from view by the radome cover but viewed up close they are sophisticated pieces of equipment with motors and gearing enabling the dish to maintain a lock on the satellite under all but the harshest conditions.
Most satellite communication systems are structured so ships are required to share channels with others which is perfectly fine for simple ship communication needs but highly inefficient when dealing with the large quantities of data that some operators generate. This can be overcome by making use of a very small aperture terminal (VSAT) service.
Subscribers to VSAT services are provided with exclusive or semi-exclusive use of satellite channels for sending and receiving voice and data at broadband speeds (although a VSAT service is not necessarily needed for broadband). Usually, they are charged for this on a monthly fixed fee subscription basis (although there may be limits on the data allowed before extra charges apply) as opposed to the rate per Mbit charged when using basic services. This enables a network to be created that permits the transmission of large quantities of data.
Not all ship types or fleet managers need large data flows for commercial reasons but passenger, offshore and container operations frequently do. For passenger vessels this will involve allowing passengers to use computers, tablets and smart phones as well as providing entertainment services. In the offshore industry it enables survey and other data to be transmitted at will and for container ships there is a need for large amounts of data for stowage plans and customer services.
Competition for marine traffic is fierce and there are many players within the marine communications sector. They are however not all competing in the same market sectors.
Not all satellite systems are identical, there being three main types: LEO (low earth orbit) MEO (medium earth orbit) and GEO (Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit or more commonly called geostationary). Each of these types of systems have their pros and cons and some ship operators will sign up to services on different systems.
These satellites are the most powerful type of satellite and are located in an orbit 35,768 kilometers above the earth’s surface at a point above the equator. As their speed and direction matches the earth’s rotation they are always fixed giving meaning to the term geostationary.
The satellites have a large beam and cover a very wide area meaning that fewer satellites are required to cover the same area as other network types. Inmarsat, the first commercial maritime satellite communication system, is of this type and although it is the leading player it is not alone and there are several other players offering maritime communications and VSAT services using GEO satellites including Thuraya which is in the process of refreshing its fleet of satellites the oldest of which is now over 12 years old.
Inmarsat initially operated with three satellites spaced around the equator with each satellite covering approximately one third of the world’s surface but not extending to the polar regions above 70 degrees. Since the 1990s it has had a minimum of four satellites in service.
Inmarsat is currently in its 5th generation of satellites – all of the first four generations were limited to the L-Band with the latest generation operating on Ka-Band. In 2021, two third generation satellites provide maritime safety back-up services only and the fourth (4 L-Band satellites) and fifth generations (5 Ka-Band satellites) also provide maritime safety and fully commercial ship communications. Increasing demand for VSAT and improved 5G connectivity for both commercial and personal use at sea is driving growth in this arena.
Satellite operators are investing heavily in new satellites to increase maritime VSAT capabilities and invariably the new satellites are of the HTS (high throughput satellite) type. In June 2021 Inmarsat announced its new Orchestra service which will take satellite and 5G communications a step further. ORCHESTRA will be a seamless configuration of its L-Band and Ka-Band networks with terrestrial 5G, targeted LEO capacity, and dynamic mesh technologies.
Closest to earth are the LEO constellations which typically comprise many small satellites orbiting the earth at between 800km and 1,600km above the earth’s surface at speeds which see them completing an orbit normally in under two hours. They are ideal for very high speed, low latency communications, often exhibiting a delay of just 0.05 seconds.
Their small size and the limited coverage of each satellite means that a constellation comprising tens or hundreds of satellites is needed but this also gives the possibility for full coverage of the earth’s surface including polar regions where GEO systems cannot operate.
LEO satellites are much smaller and less costly than other types making them ideal for newcomers.
Conceivably the best-known player in this sector is Iridium which has invested heavily recently to replace the ageing satellites it acquired cheaply in the early 2000s just a few years after the original constellation was established. There were 99 satellites in the original network. 66 in use, some in orbit as spares and some unlaunched
From 2017, Iridium has developed and launched a complete new constellation comprising 66 active satellites, with another nine in-orbit spares and six on-ground spares. The new satellites in the NEXT generation have more data capacity and have been instrumental in Iridium gaining recognition as the only GMDSS service provider apart from Inmarsat.
Iridium has a proven track record in maritime communications and its new satellites and broadband Certus offering along with GMDSS approval will ensure its future. There will likely be competition for future ship communications from the likes of SpaceX’s Starlink network which will consist of tens of thousands of satellites providing broadband connectivity.
The network has been controversial for various reasons including the impact on the environment, several scientists say it will impact visibility of the night sky and competitors have queried the legality of licenses issued to SpaceX, but launches have begun and more than 1,000 satellites were operational by summer 2021. Expected additional ship communication demand from ships as a consequence of growing digitalisation of shipping and also the imminent arrival of e-navigation whether mandated or voluntary is already being anticipated by new service providers.
Advances in satellite technology means that satellites can now be much smaller and less costly than was previously the case. These so-called micro- and nano-satellites have the potential to bring new services and reduced costs for ship operators especially in niche and specialist areas.
MEO satellites orbit at a lower altitude than GEO, usually occupying the space between 5,000 and 12,000 km. Their relative proximity to Earth means they achieve far lower latency than GEO units, making them suitable for high-speed telephone signals and similar missions.
Depending on their altitude, MEO satellites usually complete one orbit of the Earth in between two and eight hours, although some can take up to 24 hours to orbit. Their smaller size and lower orbit means that between eight and 20 units will be required to provide complete coverage of the Earth.
Although more satellites are needed for a complete earth coverage MEO network, companies such as SES with its O3b constellation and Globalstar are among those investing in this sector and targeting marine customers.
The vast majority of merchant shipping trades are carried out in areas between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles which are a fraction over 66 degrees North and South respectively. This is near the limit of the 70 degrees latitudes that are the extremes of Inmarsat’s GEO satellites meaning satellite communications (including GMDSS) at latitudes above 66 degrees cannot be guaranteed. This is one of the reasons the Iridium has been accepted as a GMDSS provider since its LEO network has no latitude limitations and is available right to the North and South Poles.
Maritime activity inside the Arctic Circle has been steadily increasing involving oil and gas exploration, some domestic commercial traffic but most recently growing use of the Northern Sea Route around the top of Russia connecting Asia and Europe. There is also increasing cruising activity inside the Arctic Circle.
As a consequence, Inmarsat is expanding its GlobalXpress network with payload on two satellites planned to be launched by Space Norway and its subsidiary Space Norway HEOSAT as part of the Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission. The satellites carrying the GX payloads are scheduled for launch in 2022.
Iridium has long made much of its truly global satellite network and with its new NEXT constellation satellites it has added broadband capability with its Iridium Certus offering.
Both conventional radio and satellite communications receive and transmit electromagnetic signals or radio waves. The length or frequency of radio waves varies tremendously and to distinguish between different lengths of waves they are grouped into bands within the radio spectrum. The bands are named under a number or protocols but in maritime circles, the bands used by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) are most commonly recognised.
Some bands have a wider spread than others and each of the bands is used for a slightly different purpose. Radio communications on Low Frequency (LF), Medium Frequency (MF), High Frequency (HF), Very High Frequency (VHF) and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) bands are all on frequencies below 1GHz which is the lowest point in the spectrum allocated to satellite communications and ship’s radar.
When it comes to communications equipment on board a ship, VSAT mostly requires a choice to be made between systems operating on either C-band or Ku-band frequency. Vessels with modest traffic should opt for Ku-band, which requires less power and smaller antennae. Bigger dishes and more power are needed for the larger bandwidth and better quality of C-band systems.
The attraction of VSAT is that whichever band is chosen the equipment usually comes as part of a lease package with a fixed monthly payment, making for greater control over communication expenditure. On many modern ships the operational element of communication use is expanding rapidly, and crews are beginning to expect the kinds of email, internet and calling services that they receive on shore.
Greater bandwidth is now being used to meet the expanding market by making use of the Ka-Band. Inmarsat has invested in five satellites to use Ka-band radio frequencies and deliver mobile broadband speeds of 50Mbps.
Almost all of the Inmarsat and all of the Iridium services operate in the part of the radio spectrum labelled as L-band which is very narrow and congested. Being a relatively low frequency, L-band is easier to process, requiring less sophisticated and less expensive RF equipment, and due to a wider beam width, the pointing accuracy of the antenna does not have to be as accurate as the higher bands. Only a small portion (1.3- 1.7GHz) of L-Band is allocated to satellite ship communications on Inmarsat for the Fleet Broadband, Inmarsat-B and C services. L-Band is also used for low earth orbit satellites, military satellites, and terrestrial wireless connections like GSM mobile phones. It is also used as an intermediate frequency for satellite TV where the Ku or Ka band signals are down converted to L-Band at the antenna.
Although the equipment needed for L-Band communications is not expensive in itself, since there is not much bandwidth available in L-band, it is a costly commodity. For this reason, as the usage of data heavy applications has grown, shipping has turned to more sophisticated technology for commercial communications.
Used for marine radar systems.
C-band is typically used by large ships and particularly cruise vessels that require uninterrupted, dedicated, always on connectivity as they move from region to region. The ship operators usually lease a segment of satellite bandwidth that is provided to the ships on a full-time basis, providing connections to the Internet, the public telephone networks, and data transmission ashore. C-band is also used for terrestrial microwave links, which can present a problem when vessels come into port and interfere with critical terrestrial links. This has resulted in serious restrictions within 300Km of the coast, requiring terminals to be turned off when coming close to land.
Used for marine radar systems.
KU-BAND (12-18 GHZ)
Ku-Band refers to the lower portion of the K-Band. The “u” comes from a German term referring to “under” whereas the “a” in Ka- Band refers to “above” or the top part of K-Band. Ku-Band is used for most VSAT systems on ships. There is much more bandwidth available in Ku -Band and it is less expensive than C or L-band.
The main disadvantage of Ku-Band is rain fade. The wavelength of rain drops coincides with the wavelength of Ku-Band causing the signal to be attenuated during rain showers. This can be overcome by transmitting using extra power. The pointing accuracy of the antennas need to be much tighter than L-Band Inmarsat terminals, due to narrower beam widths, and consequently the terminals need to be more precise and tend to be more expensive.
Ku band coverage is generally by regional spot beams, covering major land areas with TV reception. VSAT Vessels moving from region to region need to change satellite beams, sometimes with no coverage in between beams. In most instances, the satellite terminals and
modems can be programmed to automatically switch beams. VSAT Antenna sizes typically range from a standard 1m to 1.5m in diameter for operation in fringe areas and, more recently, as low as 60cm for spread spectrum operation.
Ka-Band is an extremely high frequency requiring great pointing accuracy and sophisticated RF equipment. Like Ku-band it is susceptible to rain fade. It is commonly used for high-definition satellite TV. Ka- Band bandwidth is plentiful and once implemented should be quite inexpensive compared to Ku-Band.
Inmarsat was the first to provide a global Ka-Band VSAT service as its GlobalXpress service came on stream in 2016. The service uses Inmarsat’s fifth generation satellites, the first of which arrived on station in 2014 and entered commercial service in July 2014 powering regional Global Xpress services for Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
As more Ka-Band bandwidth becomes available other satellite providers are offering Ka-Band VSAT on a more regional basis. Telenor Satellite Broadcasting’s THOR 7 HTS Ka band payload offers 6-9Gbps throughput with up to 25 simultaneously active spot beams and coverage over the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. Ka-Sat covers most of Europe. Yahsat 1b, NewSat Australia, Eutelsat and Avanti Communications also provide Middle East coverage, offering mariners with strictly regional European and Middle East sailings a Ka-Band alternative to Global Xpress.
A notable development is that as new services in different bands come on streams, some providers are operating hybrid services that take advantage of the cheapest network at any given time.
The technologies required to facilitate hybrid networks consist of dual-band satellite antennas, Ku and Ka-Band switchable antennas, and the use of equivalent modem/hub infrastructure.
Most people are familiar with wi-fi as a means for using smart phones and computers and this uses a particular section of the radio spectrum that is actually within the C-Band covered above. There are a number of unlicensed spectrum bands in a variety of areas of the radio spectrum. Often these are referred to as ISM bands – Industrial, Scientific and Medical, and they carry everything from microwave ovens to radio communications. Many of these bands, including the two used for wi-fi are global allocations, although local restrictions may apply for some aspects of their use. The two bands in particular used for wi-fi are the 2.4GHz and 5 GHz bands.
As the 2.4 GHz band became more crowded, many users opted to use the 5 GHz ISM band. This not only provides more spectrum, but it is not as widely used by wi-fi. Many of the 5 GHz wi-fi channels fall outside the accepted ISM unlicensed band and as a result various restrictions are placed on operation at these frequencies.
Shipping is frequently described as a conservative industry that is slow to embrace new technologies. In fact, this is not true especially when it comes to the matter of maritime communications. Ships were communicating with the shore via radio from 1899 although initially messages were sent using morse code rather than voice. By the late 1970s, satellite communications were being used by a small number of commercial vessels and many more military ships.
Obviously technological change is only adopted once it has reached a stage where it can meet the unique demands of the maritime industry and in particular prove its reliability and robustness under the harshest of conditions. If shipping has been slower to embrace some aspects of modern technology, it is often because the difficulties and high cost of maritime communications across vast distances has meant that ship operators devised ways of minimising the amount of communications needed for commercial purposes.
Few ship operators or their crews are concerned with the high science and engineering of the satellites themselves, but they do need to understand the fundamentals of satellite communications and the radio spectrum. Starting from the very basics, ship operators and seafarers alike understand one thing and that is far from land at the mercy of wind, waves and weather a ship is constantly moving in three dimensions simultaneously and the satellite or radio antennae is a tenuous link to systems ashore.
All satellites make use of a beam which is a pattern of electromagnetic waves received or transmitted by the satellite. The transmission from a satellite has a defined pattern and the beam can be wide or narrow covering a large or small area on earth. Using a system of varying frequencies and alignment of antennas onboard the satellite, each satellite can have several beams within which all or most of the satellite’s power is concentrated.
Most satellite communication systems are structured so ships are required to share channels with others which is perfectly fine for simple communication needs but highly inefficient when dealing with the large quantities of data that some operators generate. This can be overcome by making use of a very small aperture terminal (VSAT) service.
Subscribers to VSAT services are provided with exclusive or semi-exclusive use of satellite channels for sending and receiving voice and data at broadband speeds (although a VSAT service is not necessarily needed for broadband). Usually, they are charged for this on a monthly fixed fee subscription basis (although there may be limits on the data allowed before extra charges apply) as opposed to the rate per Mbit charged when using basic services. This enables a network to be created that permits the transmission of large quantities of data.
Arguably the modern satellite antenna is the most vital link in the communication chain. Unlike the fixed systems that are used ashore, its ability to articulate in all planes and maintain a link with a satellite under all but the most extreme conditions will be the catalyst for the digitalisation of shipping. The evolution of antennae to its present reliable and robust state has come just as the use of satellite technology on a global scale is set to accelerate rapidly.
Some pioneering spirits in the world of shipping were making use of satellites in the final quarter of the 20th century and some even making use of dedicated VSAT services. But they were few and far between and the choice now opening up as network owners build new constellations of satellites in all three of the earth orbit sectors is becoming bewildering.
LEO (low earth orbit) MEO (medium earth orbit) and GEO (Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit or more commonly called geostationary) systems all have their pros and cons, and some ship operators make use of services on different systems. Then there are the bands in the spectrum that offer choices and again more factors for users to consider.
Most crew will know the limitations of radio systems and the various frequencies such as UHF and VHF which are in daily use on and around the ship. These are all under 1GHz in frequency and it is above this that the satellite frequencies and bands are found.
Navigators will be aware that X and S bands are used for radar systems but the uses and differences between L, C, Ku and Ka bands have rarely bothered seafarers or shipowners. But this is changing and deciding what communication needs are likely to be will determine which bands and which equipment is necessary.
Shipping embraced the radio age on a totally voluntary basis long before carriage of radio and employment of a radio officer became compulsory on merchant vessels. But critical mass in satellite communications was to come as a result of an IMO safety strategy. GMDSS was conceived at a time when merchant ship casualties were spiking but by the time it became fully operational in 1992, incidents and lives lost were already reducing.
GMDSS can be seen as the dawning of the satellite communications era. The advent of GMDSS saw a major change in the way all maritime communications including commercial messages were handled on ships. It also ensured the demise of the dedicated radio officer. While not all ships were obliged to install satellite systems, many crew and owners of those that did not, recognised that it offered communication by email as an option that did not exist before.
Today GMDSS has moved on from the monopoly conferred on Inmarsat and is soon to implement changes by the first review of the system since it was implemented. As a system, GMDSS mandates only the equipment to be carried and the training of those that need to implement it at sea. Unless a ship is involved in or needs to respond to an incident, the equipment need never be used although it must be maintained and certified at regular intervals.
There are however some later regulations that do require ships to communicate on a regular basis. These are primarily intended to track ship movement either by authorities in the case of LRIT (long range identification and tracking) or by authorities and other ships in the case of AIS (automatic identification system). AIS is only mandated to use radio signals, but the signal can be received by satellites and there are several commercial services that use the data for purposes beyond the navigational aid that AIS was intended to be.
Communication of regulated information is on the increase and already covers to some extent the information for port state authorities that port agents have traditionally supplied and advance notices of arrival for some nations – notably the US – for security purposes.
Although not yet mandated there will likely be more requirements for information and data to be reported. Examples include the IMO and EU emission reporting requirements and conceivably more data on cargo under the impending CII requirement.
Having been obliged to install satellite equipment as part of GMDSS, shipowners soon realised that email was a better method of communication than radiotelegraphy and although with Inmarsat C the transmission or receipt was not instant it was quicker than other methods but could be more expensive.
Communication costs are something that shipowners have become expert at keeping in check over the years and superfluous communication was traditionally discouraged other than by letter or telephone when the ship was in port. As the cost of communicating has fallen, many ship operators and managers have embraced the opportunity to communicate more freely and the volume of traffic has definitely increased dramatically and is still accelerating.
Having said that, the volume and method of communication will be determined by the type and age of the vessel and the service it is operating on, and the ship management strategies and procedures of the ship operator and cargo owners.
In the new digital age, pioneering owners are making much more use of software monitoring and services offered by equipment suppliers to oversee and advise on machinery management and maintenance. This is driving a move away from services that charge for maritime communications based on data usage and towards subscription services that come with a data allowance or even unlimited data transfer. Often these services are geared towards a switch to VSAT services.
In the days of radio communications only, personal communication facilities on board for all but senior officers were, to all intents and purposes, non-existent. That has changed in the satellite era but although accessible by many seafarers.
The early years of this century were characterised by maritime communications service providers making all efforts to increase use of their services primarily to increase revenue. One of the methods employed was to promote and facilitate crew communications first by way of provision of an onboard telephone and later by email as mobile phones and tablets became readily available on a global basis.
Most, but not all, owners were relaxed about crew communication provision because the cost did not fall to them to cover but was managed by means of recharging the cost to individual crew members. Crew communications and connectivity is partially covered in the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention. Although there is no specific mention of provision in the mandatory part of the convention text, there is reference to ‘reasonable access to ship to shore telephone communications and email and Internet facilities where available, with any charges for the use of these services being reasonable in amount’. What constitutes reasonable is debatable but for the crew affordability is still an issue with some suggesting that around a quarter of their wages can be spent on communication costs.
Passengers are also benefitting from the satellite communication services on ships. In some cases, they were in fact some of the first to do so as cruise vessels equipped with C-band systems could receive entertainment services from a number of specialist providers.
For shipowners some benefits are to be had from fast connections on passenger vessels such as cruise ships and ferries. Here an extra revenue stream can be tapped by allowing passengers to use their own mobile telephones onboard. Both passengers and crew can benefit from streamed entertainment services of which there are an increasing number. Services such as Inmarsat’s Fleet Media allow for latest movies, international films, sports and TV shows to be downloaded on vessels anywhere in the world. This gives access to hundreds of hours of on-demand content that can be watched on a laptop, computer or an iOS or Android smart device via wi-fi or physical network connection.
Another method is by means of picocells connected to the ships communication system a picocell is a small base station installed in accommodation areas of the ship that extends mobile coverage. Connected to a remote gateway it will convert a mobile call into a narrowband IP signal for transmission over the satellite network used by the vessel. The picocells allow mobile phones fitted with appropriate prepaid SIM cards to access the maritime communications be they VSAT or L-Band.
Easier and faster maritime communications coupled with modern sensor technology have opened up a whole range of opportunities for ship operators that is changing the ways ships are operated and maintained.
It takes time for new ideas and concepts to permeate an industry that is in some ways fragmented by trade, region and the resources available to individual owners and operators. Many of the latest ideas will probably not become universal on ships for many years but they are already accepted and employed on tens of thousands of ships. As digitalisation increases, the integration and evolution of ideas is regularly turning up new concepts.
Seafarer training used to be a combination of shore-based theory, onboard practice and lots of book learning whenever and wherever possible if someone wanted to progress to officer or higher rank status. In the digital age, a lot of the shore training is done using simulators and increasingly using computer-based training. Increased communication capacity on board has allowed the CBT to take place on board with students being tested regularly and records of their ability and new skills shared electronically between training provider and employer.
In a recent trend, simulator training is moving to take place at sea while crew are serving on the ship. At a basic level this corresponds to the CBT situation with a single screen and a keyboard being the input devices. Quite clearly it would be impractical to install a full mission simulator on a ship and the ship’s own equipment is not intended for training but more than one training service provider is exploring virtual reality as a training tool for crew members, regarding emergencies that may occur on board.
Performance monitoring is a relatively new development in ship operation that has its origins in the trim optimisation software developed by several companies in the mid-2000s. At that point in time, the ability to transfer large volumes of data ashore was something that most ships did not have so the software systems on the market were aimed at giving crew on board information that could be actioned in real time or used for improving future operations.
Whilst all of the systems have their own unique differences, basically all collect a wide range of real time measurements such as inclination of the ship both fore and aft and transversally, ship speed, engine power and load, fuel use, wind and tide strength and direction, capacity of ballast, fuel and other easily moved stores.
With the data acquired, the software can rapidly calculate all of the possible permutations and present the information for the crew to take any necessary remedial action. Most of the systems can also make recommendations or show the effect of a possible change in one of the parameters. For example, a change in speed, engine load or course direction.
Even as standalone systems on board individual ships, these systems did produce some significant fuel savings but improvements in the software and growing use of maritime communications would mean they could develop into full performance monitoring solutions for the shipowner.
Depending upon the ships systems and equipment suppliers, data can be assimilated from virtually anywhere giving a full picture for the ship and shore office. The information can provide early warning of equipment failure and also identify when a ship may be approaching the limits of performance and consumption limits set out in charter parties.
The online modules that can be integrated into most systems automatically transfer data to shore and can even simultaneously display data from a whole fleet on a large office display so that any ship which is not performing optimally at that moment can be identified. Several of the systems can be programmed to identify operating profiles on regularly used routes that minimise fuel use and modify these based on changing weather and sea state forecasts.
The latest trend in performance monitoring involves its evolution into what is often called an Internet of Things (IoT). This is being enabled by maritime communications services providers actively encouraging the use of third party applications on their platforms. An example is Inmarsat’s Fleet Data solution. This is a bandwidth-inclusive IoT platform that allows ship operators to instantly collect data from onboard sensors, upload the data to a secure cloud-based platform, and interface with applications from third-party application developers.
Another development of performance monitoring is moving beyond observation to assisting in maintenance. Ships are a complex mix of machinery and equipment systems and although some are unique to ships, many have equivalents on shore. First and foremost among these are the engines, especially medium-speed, four-stroke engines. On ships these can be either propulsion engines or gensets and a similar situation exists onshore where they are used in power generation or in road and rail transport.
For decades it has been common practice in shore situations for the engine maker to be heavily involved in maintenance of their equipment in power stations. This has been taken a step further still because the more robust communication facilities available on shore have allowed equipment to be monitored around the clock from central control stations and the computerised engine control units can be modified remotely to adjust engine running parameters or even to stop an engine if a dangerous situation develops.
These developments are gradually finding their way into the marine sector but restricted maritime communications on many ships combined with the fact that equipment on older vessels may not be suitable for some of the changes that are becoming possible. Almost all engines installed on ships today will be electronically controlled and have an engine control unit and some older engines can be upgraded.
Shipping is not being left behind in other aspects of maintenance and training. Both of the main engine makers (MAN Energy Solutions and Wärtsilä) have embraced VR training and added it to simulator training and hands on training services. This does permit engineers to be trained on products that are not physically present and has potential for use onboard ships as well as in training establishments.
It is however in the field of remote assistance enabled by augmented reality that the greatest potential for onboard use is to be found. Remote monitoring and assistance of equipment was making slow inroads into marine circles in the years before the COVID pandemic but looks to be something that more operators will be willing to participate in. The ability to use 4G cell phone technology in ports has assisted but the availability of more satellite bandwidth can bring the same remote capabilities to vessels at sea well out of range of shore communication networks. AR in particular has the potential to transform maintenance and emergency assistance as ship side user only needs to be a physical presence while the experience and knowledge is provided by the shore side experts.
Thus far, all of the developments mentioned have been about shipping adopting new communications and technology to evolve traditional shipping methods, but there are other agendas in place as well. One that has achieved attention in the last five years or so is the question of remote operation.
Remote operation is seen by some as a halfway step to autonomous ships but by others it is making use of technology to assist the crew of the vessel in emergencies and by providing back up under other circumstances.
The idea of autonomous ships may have been something discussed in military circles and in boardrooms of commercial equipment suppliers, but it was never really a topic that ship operators themselves had publicly debated prior to 2012 or thereabouts. The matter of fully unmanned autonomous ships is still a matter of debate and while there are some projects in place, the regulatory and commercial desirability is a long way from being decided. Remote control of ships is however now a reality although not yet at a commercial operation level. Several demonstrations of remote operation have taken place since the first by Rolls Royce in 2017.
Projects involving remote control as a prelude to autonomous ship operation are also underway around the globe. One of the most ambitious was to send an autonomous craft across the Atlantic. The Mayflower Autonomous Ship project has its own website (MAS400.com) from where developments can be tracked. The trimaran vessel which is around 30m began its planned voyage in June but was forced to turn back with a mechanical problem two days into the voyage. After repairs it was put back in the water in September, but the planned voyage was postponed until early 2022. With no humans onboard, the research vessel uses IBM’s automation, AI and edge computing technologies to make decisions based on its status, environment and mission.
The related but less controversial subject of remote assistance is another topic that has evolved over the last decade. The criticisms levelled against shipping after the Costa Concordia incident galvanized some operators to establish better oversight of vessels at sea. Carnival Corporation – the parent of Costa Cruises – has been a pioneer in this respect and has established three Fleet Operation Centers (FOCs) in Hamburg (2016), Seattle (2017) and Miami (2018).
These monitor all aspects of navigational safety, weather and energy management, receiving screen shot data from the bridges and engine rooms every 60 seconds and switching to 15 second feeds if necessary. In addition, alarm status, stability information, and tank status is also transmitted. The information is displayed on a wall mounted screen display comprising several large screens allowing all relevant data and equipment status to be viewed with the need to switch screens as is necessary even on some bridge workstations which only have a single screen.
The centres are manned 24/7 always with experienced mariners on hand. In the event of any safety concerns, the FOC team supports the captain and his crew on the vessel concerned. The FOC also supports the ships with regard to any non-safety-critical situations deviating from planning, such as developing gales or hurricanes which could make route alterations necessary, rescheduled sailings due to the late arrival of embarking passengers, etc.
Assuming the commercial objections can be addressed, at some point it is likely there will be a fusion of the Remote control centres used in the few projects that have taken place and the FOCs. As things stand, there are very few systems on ships that could reliably run for long periods without crew intervention, but autonomous ships feature strongly in some visions of shipping’s future.
Until then there will be a need for crew and with that comes a need for occasional remote assistance of the medical kind. At a very early stage in the marine satellite era in 2001, a Norwegian company called iMed piloted a service with a local shipowner in which a digital camera was used to transmit images and a modified ECG machine could send readings ashore.
Today there are several services that offer a modern telemedicine service for ships but penetration into the commercial ships sector is still a long way behind cruise ship provision. The service providers or maybe enablers come from different backgrounds with some being charitable or subscription medical professionals, others equipment suppliers and in the case or Marlink’s Telemed a communication service provider.
The COVID pandemic has accelerated the use of remote medical assistance on shore and simultaneously highlighted the problems faced by seafarers who in some cases were refused access to shore facilities even though their ship was anchored offshore or in port. As more experience of the success of examination by video link is gained, it is likely that this can be migrated to marine use.
Coupled with greater experience of diagnosing by video, better maritime communications and bandwidth will enable much improved display of injuries and symptoms. Having equipment such as defibrillators onboard will then put seafarers in perhaps a better place even than people ashore who are unlikely to have that available. The cost of equipment and the better bandwidth would certainly be far less than the cost of just one or two unnecessary diversions in the working life of a ship.
Cyber security has become a necessary fact of life in the computer age especially since connectivity to the internet has become the norm. There are still stand alone computer systems to be found on ships, but these are becoming increasingly scarce and even some systems that were not planned to be linked to the outside world are vulnerable if they are upgraded or designed by way of USB sticks or the like.
The potential for navigation and safety to be jeopardised by attacks whether malicious, criminal in intent or an inadvertent interference with a vital system prompted the IMO in 2017 to recommend ship operators to address the issue in their safety management systems. That recommendation came into effect at the start of 2021. Company SMS policies and procedures should help ensure that cyber security is considered within the overall approach to safety and security risk management.
Effective segregation of systems, based on necessary access and trust levels, is one of the most successful strategies for the prevention of cyber incidents. Effectively segregated networks can significantly impede an attacker’s access to a ship’s systems and is one of the most effective techniques for preventing the spread of malware.
Manufacturers of satellite communication terminals and other communication equipment may provide management interfaces with security control software that are accessible over the network. This is primarily provided in the form of web-based user interfaces. Protection of such interfaces should be considered when assessing the security of a ship’s installation.
The battle against cyber criminals is a never ending one. What works today as protection may not work tomorrow. It is essential to keep abreast of developments and take action as appropriate. For ships it is especially important to ensure that communication service providers are offering up to date protection through their various products.
Over the years since GMDSS was introduced communication use on ships has undergone a revolution and here we look at crew and passenger communications. The surge in satellite communication equipment sales that resulted was enough to convince service providers that there was a rich vein to be tapped with growth coming from outside the traditional traffic that passes between ship and shore.
When the digitalisation of shipping was not even a consideration, the one that attracted the most attention was crew calling. Ever since It has been promoted both as an essential element of crew welfare and as a means of retaining staff in a time of shortage of skilled seafarers.
That argument is generally accepted but as access has improved and more modern technology that has allowed internet access as well as telephone calls has been installed there have been some negative comments. One is that some seafarers, able to use the internet for gaming, browsing and social media, are tending to isolate themselves from colleagues to the detriment of cohesive teamwork on the ship.It should also be pointed out that in at least three casualty investigations by the UK’s MAIB, use of personal communications equipment causing distraction has been mentioned as a contributing factor to a grounding or collision.
Access for crew to communications is by no means universal. Take up has been high in some sectors especially in the offshore and among higher quality operators. Probably up to half of the vessels sailing have no provision for mobile telephone or internet connectivity for crew whatsoever beyond what the crew can provide for themselves. A very small number of frugal owners may feel that they have good reason not to provide crews with the means to report poor conditions on board.
Crew calling on the ships that adopted it early usually involved the operator providing a telephone or a computer terminal for email connectivity that crew can use during non-working periods. Some operators may provide a free of charge service but more commonly crew members are charged for their communications usage either through a prepaid card or by deduction from wages. Logging on to the systems is usually by assigned passwords so as to allow the operator to identify actual usage.
On smaller vessels and those with little more communications equipment than is mandatory, providing crew calling can create difficulty. With perhaps only one telephone on board for crew calling, disputes may arise over usage while seafarers whose families lack a home telephone or computer (quite rare today but not unheard of) will have no need of the service. Where access to communications is limited, ratings generally fare worse than officers.
Crew communications and connectivity is partially in the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention. Although there is no specific mention of provision in the mandatory part of the convention text, there is reference in the guidelines. Guideline B 3.1.11 Section 4 lists facilities that should be given at no cost to the seafarer where practical. Item J in this text covers ‘reasonable access to ship to shore telephone communications and email and Internet facilities where available, with any charges for the use of these services being reasonable in amount’. Exactly how this guideline is interpreted and put into operation by flag States and ship operators is not widely publicised, but it does at least open up the door to wider access for seafarers in future.
Since the early days of crew and passenger communications, communication service providers have been rolling out new products to take advantage of increased access by crews. Today this normally takes the form of the dedicated terminal being omitted in favour of crew using their own cell phones, tablets or computers with some form of control system and software monitoring individual use. Depending upon the ship type there are at least two ways of doing this.
One is an extension of the systems now commonly found on passenger ships equipped with VSAT where the ship is assigned its own unique roaming identification and passengers and crew can use their own personal mobile phones with the cost charged to their new normal billing system. A variation on this allows the crew members to use their own phones but with a different prepaid SIM card fitted. With the different cards crew can take advantage of special great calls between similarly equipped phones even when the users may be on a different vessel.
Another method is by means of picocells connected to the ships communication system. A picocell is a small base station installed in accommodation areas of the ship that extends mobile coverage. Connected to a remote gateway it will convert a mobile call into a narrowband IP signal for transmission over the satellite network used by the vessel. The picocells allow mobile phones fitted with appropriate prepaid SIM cards to access the communications be they VSAT or L-Band. If a VSAT connection is available, it would be possible to assign roaming rights that allow crew to use their own phones.
Wherever prepaid SIM cards are used, a crew member will need to use a mobile phone that has been unlocked. When in port and away from the ship the user can still use the phone once the prepaid SIM has been replaced by one obtained locally through a local or international service provider. If a phone has a dual sim slot this makes switching even easier.
Determining the full extent of crew access is not easy and relies on surveys carried out by interested parties. There have been no published surveys during the last two years when seafarers arguably had a greater need for communications than at any time in the past.
A survey carried out in 2017 by the seafarers’ trade union Nautilus International, which represents more than 22,000 maritime professionals mostly from the UK and the Netherlands, showed that although 88% of seafarers now have some sort of internet access, only 6% can video-call families. By comparison, statistics at that time show 91% of UK homes and 85% of European homes have broadband access, with the United Nations recently suggesting that access to the internet should be a basic right, rather than a luxury. The Nautilus survey interviewed nearly 2,000 seafarers and shipping industry leaders for the research.
Other key findings showed that although most seafarers have internet access, they are on limited wi-fi speeds at a high cost. In addition, only 57% of crew have personal email access and just one third have social media access at sea (34%).
More than 80% of Nautilus’ members who completed the survey considered crew and passenger communications one of the most important collective bargaining issues, second only to improved pay. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) agreed they would consider moving to a shipping company that offered better onboard connectivity.
Of the industry leaders surveyed, more than one in 10 (14%) admitted they do not provide their employees with any access to the internet. The two biggest reasons given were fears crews would access illegal or adult content (83%) and the potentially high installation costs (83%). The survey also found that nearly two-thirds of respondents (58%) were concerned the provision would result in a distraction to work.
Another survey was carried out in 2018 by Futurenautics in association with KVH and Intelsat. This survey is the latest in a series going back to 2012. Key findings of the 2018 survey show some similarities with the Nautilus International Report. According to the report, 75% of vessels have internet access but just 61% of seafarers have access to crew communications services ‘most of the time’ or ‘always’ but the rest (650,000 seafarers, the report says) “still struggle to stay connected whilst at sea”, including “below 2%” of the total never having access to crew communications. That works out at about 32,000 seafarers.
For ship operators to allow crew members access to communications and to recover the cost either by selling prepaid cards or deductions from wages is one thing and leaves them in a breakeven situation. For the seafarers the cost of communications is still a big issue. In the early days a voice phone call would cost as much as US$0.53 per minute – maybe not a huge cost for an offshore vessel crew member but very much so for the average AB on a cargo vessel.
The 2018 Futurenautics study revealed seafarers worldwide are spending, on average, between US$89.46 (seafarers from Europe, the Middle East and Africa) and US$132.13 (south central Asia) on communication whilst at sea. As of 1 January 2016, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) stated that the basic monthly wage for an AB was US$614. Their communication costs are therefore a very high percentage of wages – some may consider too high a percentage especially if the seafarer has a family to care for.
For shipowners some benefits are to be had from fast connections on passenger vessels such as cruise ships and ferries. Here an extra revenue stream can be tapped by allowing passengers to use their own mobile telephones onboard. Both passengers and crew can benefit from streamed entertainment services of which there are an increasing number. Services such as Inmarsat’s Fleet Media allow for latest movies, international films, sports and TV shows to be downloaded on vessels anywhere in the world. This gives crew members access to hundreds of hours of on-demand content that can be watched on a laptop, computer or an iOS or Android smart device via wi-fi or physical network connection.
The Nautilus survey results were announced in July 2017 but had probably been compiled some time earlier. By coincidence the cyberattack experienced by Maersk Line, which caused it to replace every computer within the company took place in June 2017. Ever since the question of cyber security and the vulnerabilities of systems has constantly raised the issue of crew communications being a possible weak point that needs addressing.
Security was not really an issue when crew communications first took off because the mobile phones then were generally not able to do anything beyond making voice calls and SMS messages. Even when the first iPhones appeared in 2007, their price tag was beyond most seafarers.
The issue of cybersecurity will be covered in a future article, but it is a convenient point to highlight that separating crew/passenger and ship’s communication networks is perhaps a sensible precaution given that cyber threats are more likely to come from emails and personal communication given the lack of controls that are usually exercised.
Remote operation on ships is a subject that has its roots in numerous places; the controversial concept of autonomous ships, the idea that 80% of maritime incidents are caused by human error, the trend for reducing crew numbers and as a reaction to incidents such as the grounding of the Costa Concordia.
Remote operation on ships is seen by some as a halfway step to autonomous ships but by others it is making use of technology to assist the crew of the vessel in emergencies and by providing back up under other circumstances.
The idea of autonomous ships may have been something discussed in military circles and in boardrooms of commercial equipment suppliers, but it was never really a topic that ship operators themselves had publicly debated prior to 2012 or thereabouts.
The related concept of e-Navigation was however at the heart of the EU’s ATOMOS (Advanced Technology for Optimising Manpower On Ships) project begun in 1992. The aim of this project was to reduce crew numbers on EU member state flagged vessels as a response to the lower crew costs for Asian and East European shipowners being seen as a threat to competition. One of the conclusions of the project was that modern low-manning, high-tech ships are at least as safe as conventional vessels.
In 2012, another EU funded project MUNIN (Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks) was purely concerned with developing autonomous and unmanned ships. The project completed in 2015 by which time the subject was being openly discussed and debated throughout the shipping industry.
The timing of the MUNIN project may have been coincidental but it followed rather quickly on from the grounding of the Costa Concordia in January that year. The vessel had deviated from its planned route at Isola del Giglio by direction of its captain and struck a rock formation on the seafloor. The tragedy, in which 32 people died, raised questions about the attitude of ship operators and their lack of oversight of vessels at sea and led directly to some companies including the Carnival Group to establish shore operation centres.
The matter of fully unmanned autonomous ships is still a matter or debate and while there are some projects in place, the regulatory and commercial desirability is a long way from being decided. Remote control of ships is however now a reality although not yet at a commercial operation level.
In 2017, Rolls-Royce in conjunction with tug operator Svitzer demonstrated the world’s first remotely operated commercial vessel in Copenhagen, the 28m long Svitzer Hermod. From the quayside in Copenhagen harbour the vessel’s captain, stationed at the vessel’s remote base at Svitzer headquarters, berthed the vessel alongside the quay, undocked, turned 360°, and piloted it to the Svitzer HQ, before docking again.
The tug is equipped with a Rolls-Royce Dynamic Positioning System, which was the key link to the remote controlled system. The vessel also features a range of sensors which combine different data inputs using advanced software to give the captain an enhanced understanding of the vessel and its surroundings. The data was transmitted to the remote operating centre which was designed to redefine the way in which vessels are controlled. Instead of copying existing wheelhouse design, input from experienced captains was used to place the different system components in the optimum place to give the master confidence and control. The aim was to create a future proof standard for the control of vessels remotely.
Later the same year, a team from Wärtsilä Dynamic Positioning remotely controlled a platform supply vessel in the North Sea off Scotland using a standard satellite link from its office in California 8,000km away. The satellite link included no significant latency and allowed for manoeuvring the vessel as if aboard the vessel. To make the remote control work Wärtsilä said the greatest challenge was developing a way to get sufficient data over a low-bandwidth connection but did not reveal how this was achieved. The team also needed to find a way to recover the link seamlessly if it was disrupted, and to make it secure to counter the risk of hacking.
The vessel was a 4,000dwt, 80m PSV. The control system used at the remote centre was an identical model of the ship’s integrated bridge system. Over the course of four hours the Wärtsilä team used the Gulfmark Highland Chieftain’s DP system to send it on a ‘box manoeuvre’, 20m in four directions. They then used a combination of DP and joystick control to carry out a series of other manoeuvres, testing control of surge, sway and yaw, before steering the vessel for a short distance on its journey back to Aberdeen.
In both cases, a normal crew was on board in case of problems developing, but in neither case did they have to intervene.
After the test, Wärtsilä said in a statement that the big prize in the short term is to use remote control technology to move some crew onshore, rather than to develop a completely unmanned ship. To do this, Wärtsilä is looking at using video and laser proximity sensors to allow the remote operator to have the same situational awareness as an officer on the bridge. The company did not believe this was possible with the satellite links then available but said ships could switch to 4G near the coast, so offshore crew can navigate through traffic, around obstacles, and into ports. Some degree of autonomous control will also be crucial so that the ship knows what to do if the connection is lost.
In 2020 Samsung Heavy Industries navigated a tug from a remote operations centre 150 miles away from the port. The demonstration combined collision avoidance, autopilot, and remote control technologies. The 125-foot tug operating at the Geoje Shipyard in Korea was outfitted with the company’s Samsung Autonomous Ship technology.
According to Samsung, SAS analyses in real-time signals from navigational communication equipment, including radar, GPS, and AIS, to recognize nearby ships and obstacles. The system develops the route for the vessel, evaluating the risk of collision considering the ship’s operating characteristics. It then navigates the vessel to its destination by automatically controlling the propulsion and steering.
Operators at the remote control centre were able to monitor the operations and guide the vessel with images combined with augmented reality (AR) technology. Among the tools they had was a 360-degree view around the ship that was made possible using LTE/5G mobile communication technology. At the land control centre, they viewed the images on a large screen, monitoring the operation of the ship and demonstrating the technology to directly control the tug.
Projects involving remote control as a prelude to autonomous ship operation are also underway around the globe. One of the most ambitious was to send an autonomous craft across the Atlantic. The Mayflower Autonomous Ship project has its own website (MAS400.com) from where developments can be tracked. The trimaran vessel which is around 30m began its planned voyage in June 2020 but was forced to turn back with a mechanical problem two days into the voyage. After repairs it was put back in the water in September 2020, but the planned voyage was postponed until early 2022. With no humans onboard, the research vessel uses IBM’s automation, AI and edge computing technologies to make decisions based on its status, environment and mission.
The criticisms levelled against shipping after Costa Concordia galvanised some operators to establish better oversight of vessels at sea. Carnival Corporation – the parent of Costa Cruises – has been a pioneer in this respect and has established three Fleet Operation Centers (FOCs) in Hamburg (2016), Seattle (2017) and Miami (2018).
The FOC monitors all aspects of navigational safety, weather and energy management. It receives screen shot data from the bridges and engine rooms, all ships being monitored every 60 seconds and can switch to 15 second feeds if necessary. In addition, alarm status, stability information, and tank status is also transmitted. The information is displayed on a wall mounted screen display comprising several large screens allowing all relevant data and equipment status to be viewed with the need to switch screens as is necessary even on some bridge workstations which only have a single screen.
The centres are manned 24/7 always with at least two experienced mariners on hand. In the event of any safety concerns, the FOC team supports the captain and his crew on the vessel concerned. The FOC also supports the ships with regard to any non-safety-critical situations deviating from planning, such as developing gales or hurricanes which could make route alterations necessary, rescheduled sailings due to the late arrival of embarking passengers, etc.
In case a navigating ship deviates from the planned route corridor, the FOC staff receives an alert. In such cases it verifies if the deviation is comprehensible and its cause, which might be dense traffic (confirmed by reference to screen shots from radar, AIS etc). If the cause of the deviation cannot be verified, the FOC makes immediate phone contact with the ship. In a developing situation, the ship itself can make contact with the FOC seeking advice.
Collection of automated data done through the Microsoft-based ‘NEPTUNE’ platform, specifically developed for use by Carnival Maritime, allows for storing and comparing of the data of all ships monitored and supported, helping to define best-practice solutions for example for itinerary planning or engine usage on a specific route.
Carnival has built custom tools for use and integration into the FOCs such as its proprietary software applications Neptune and Argos. Developed in-house, Argos is an always-on knowledge management tool that harnesses information from thousands of data points and overlays rules-based decision making, predictive alerting and queuing into one visual dashboard. The result is at-a-glance situational awareness across the fleet which significantly improves communication from ship to shore, enhances safe passage of ships, improves operational efficiencies and supports overall environmental initiatives.
Neptune captures and provides analytics for dozens of distinct parameters for navigational safety from each ship, focusing on three strategic areas to optimise safety, efficiency and overall fleet performance.
Carnival is not the only company to operate such centres but to build three or more which can each take over if one centre goes offline for any reason is probably beyond the reach of many operators especially as Carnival’s network is built upon the company’s structure with offices for its different fleet areas.
VR, AR, AI in shipping are all commonly used abbreviations. Historically equipment makers have recommended maintenance regimes for their products. In the early years after sale, following the recommendations are essential to meet warranty requirements. After that most operators have tended to follow the OEM’s recommendations and use a preventative maintenance strategy that requires replacement of parts at specified intervals.
More recently there has been growing acceptance of condition based or predictive maintenance regimes. In these there is a reliance on testing of lubricants for signs of component wear and more measurement using sensors for parameters such as heat, pressure, temperature or vibration.
Ships are a complex mix of machinery and equipment systems and although some are unique to ships, many have equivalents on shore. First and foremost among these are the engines, especially medium-speed, four-stroke engines. On ships these can be either propulsion engines or gensets and a similar situation exists onshore where they are used in power generation or in road and rail transport.
For decades it has been common practice in shore situations for the engine maker to be heavily involved in maintenance of their equipment in power stations. In some cases, the power station operator may even contract with the engine maker to provide all the staff necessary to routinely operate the engine. With the development of electronic engine management this has accelerated the use of condition based maintenance regimes.
This has been taken a step further still because the more robust communication facilities available on shore have allowed equipment to be monitored around the clock from central control stations and the computerised engine control units can be modified remotely to adjust engine running parameters or even to stop an engine if a dangerous situation develops.
These developments are gradually finding their way into the marine sector but restricted communications on many ships combined with the fact that equipment on older vessels may not be suitable for some of the changes that are becoming possible. Almost all engines installed on ships today will be electronically controlled and have an engine control unit and some older engines can be upgraded.
In order to switch from a preventative maintenance regime to a condition based regimes, historic data (which may be paper-based) needs to be collated and recorded after which new data will be added either in real time if communication systems allow or at regular pre-determined intervals. If the shipowner chooses an OEM’s maintenance service, then the data can also be used along with data from other operator’s engines to build a database for each engine type which can help with trend analysis using AI and algorithms based on multiple recorded faults.
Unlike shore-based engines which are usually standard models, marine engines can often be one-offs particularly in the two-stroke arena. Even seemingly identical engines may have differences if built by different licensees who are able to make some of their own modifications. This can make building databases difficult but even if the quantity of data is small, it can be used to predict some problems.
Although the majority of shipowners moving to condition based maintenance tend to use the services offered by OEMs, there are a growing number of third party providers in the market. A ship operator with multiple engine brands across its fleet may prefer to use such a service for a whole variety of reasons including – but not limited to – cost.
Shipping is not being left behind in other aspects of maintenance and training. Both of the main engine makers (MAN Energy Solutions and Wärtsilä) have embraced VR, AR, AI in shipping training and added it to simulator training and hands on training services. This does permit engineers to be trained on products that are not physically present and has potential for use onboard ships as well as in training establishments.
It is however in the field of remote assistance enabled by augmented reality that the greatest potential for onboard use is to be found. In early 2019, Wärtsilä successfully tested its remote guidance service that it plans to roll out to customers making use of the Pointr App that can run on mobile phones and tablets.
The tests were conducted in real time using voice-controlled Augmented Reality (AR) wearables and remote guidance software, onboard the Huckleberry Finn, a ro-ro ferry operated by TT-Lines, while sailing between Trelleborg, Sweden and Travemünde, Germany.
Simulated remote guidance service situations were carried out on the ship’s navigation equipment on the bridge and on the shaftline seals and bearings in the engine room. The Wi-Fi signal for the video sessions was facilitated by a portable on-deck LTE antenna. The onboard simulations were monitored in real-time by expert Wärtsilä personnel located in Gothenburg and Hamburg. The tests verified the effectiveness of the AR wearables as a means of communication, while the portable Wi-Fi antenna provided a strong signal wherever needed.
Wärtsilä’s remote guidance service also proved successful during a demonstration in the TT-Lines office, during which remote guidance opportunities for use in dockings and shipyard overhauls were discussed.
Some months after the Wärtsilä tests ABB which manufactures turbochargers, motors and propulsion systems also began introducing AR functionality for its service teams and client contractors and engineers.
ABB’s Ability Remote Insights service will give field service technicians an AR interface that includes remote guidance, screen sharing, and document sharing to guide them through performing specific tasks. ABB says in addition to improving the performance of technicians working in remote locations in terms of speed and efficiency, the system will improve response times and extend asset lifecycles.
ABB supplies AR software but hardware is left as a choice for the user. Ideally this should be an AR or mixed reality headset such as the Hololens, Google Glass Enterprise, or Vuzix AR glasses as the user will have both hands free for working and to use hand gesture controls to navigate the Remote Insights interface. ABB says the system can also work on smartphones, tablets, or other wearables.
Remote classification society surveys directed by shore personnel and using crew handling cameras became increasingly common as Covid-19 lockdowns prevented surveyors travelling to some locations. Covid aside, a remote survey avoids waiting time for a surveyor to reach the vessel, as well as unnecessary travel costs.
Most class societies carried out remote surveys and are now considering the roll out of remote surveys under more normal conditions not least because travel costs and delays are eliminated, the surveys are quicker, produce survey documentation instantly and thus allow updates of survey status on electronic records.