|
ANNEX 8
LONG RANGE TRACKING AND REPORTING
1 |
The MSWG discussed the requirements for long range identification and tracking of ships with a view to developing functional requirements to assist the NAV Sub-Committee in studying practical means of providing these functions. |
2 |
The MSWG considered the options of an open broadcast type of system, where information would be available to all shore stations and other ships, and a closed secure type of system where information is only available to competent authorities. Noting the possible commercial sensitivity of the information, the MSWG concluded that a secure system was required using shore infrastructure operated under the authority of Governments, which then may be networked into integrated regional systems by agreement between Governments. |
3 |
The MSWG considered the content of the information required and concluded that simple identity and position was adequate, as the use of the information by a coastal state was to eliminate the vast majority of ships which were known not to pose a threat. The MSWG discussed the extent of the area of sea that would be of interest to a coastal state but concluded that this was variable depending on circumstances. However it was likely to be some hundreds of miles from the coast and updated information would be required some times a day. |
4 |
Based on these discussions the MSWG agreed the following functional requirements for a system for long range identification and tracking: |
The system is intended to enhance the security of coastal States by providing information about vessel traffic in a timely manner to enable the State to take any appropriate action.
The system should:
・ Enable the identification and tracking of ships at sea.
・ Provide the competent authority of the coastal State with the identity and position of the ship.
・ Ensure that the information is provided to the competent authority in a secure and confidential manner, with due regard to commercial sensitivity.
・ Not provide information to other ships.
・ Be capable of working with different densities of shipping.
5 |
The MSWG considered possible options for achieving the functional requirements. If Inmarsat polling is used the system could be immediately enabled for ships that already carry Inmarsat-C equipment. However a small proportion of older ships equipment may require software upgrades and these will have to be taken into account. No modifications are needed to the land earth stations. |
6 |
If the long range interface provided with AIS is used then a number of issues will have to be resolved in order for the long-range possibilities of AIS to be implemented: |
・ Security - AIS is a broadcast system
・ The control/command sentences for long range AIS have been published and are in the public domain
・ The long range AIS standard allows for manual override and therefore open the possibility that a ship may not report when requested by the competent authority
・ Standards for the interface between the AIS and the communications equipment have yet to be defined - Inmarsat or HF radio
・ Retro-fit modifications would have to be carried out on all ships
・ Additional equipment may be required at shore and land earth stations.
7 |
The MSWG discussed the question of who would pay the telecommunication charges for transmitting the information i.e. the coastal authorities or the ship. Noting that it is the coastal authority that is requesting the information and that the ship will generally be unaware that the information has been transmitted, the MSWG concluded that the coastal States should pay for any telecommunication charges in response to polling requests. |
8 |
Actual costs could not be exactly deduced. If Inmarsat polling is used then the data in a standard Inmarsat position report i.e.: Inmarsat identity number, longitude, latitude, course, speed and date/time of position update, can be transmitted for typically 10 US cents. Increased amounts of data per report, e.g. by including AIS- specific data such as ship name and next port, would greatly increase telecommunication costs to typically 2 US dollars. If HF radio is used the costs are likely to be competitive with Inmarsat costs. |
9 |
The MSWG noted that it may be necessary to develop a short term and a long term solution. |
|
