200051 Bridge Automation

Bridge Automation
Report No. 200051

I read with interest the Mars report expressing concern over Bridge Automation. The author was rather disturbed when his ship 'mysteriously' altered course whilst he was on the bridge wing. Our vessel, a large 80 metre motor yacht has had the system he described installed since 1995. Whilst I am very aware of the limitations of the system I am also very aware of how useful a system can be. One distinct advantage of this is when crossing the North Atlantic on a Great Circle route. The ship, being guided by the GPS will follow the GC track from start to finish making small alterations as necessary. We do not, however, use this system in dense traffic situations nor whilst in close proximity to either land or other vessels.

Our systems, and all other approved systems, are not allowed to alter course unless this has been approved by the operator. Our particular system has a two tiered alarm. The first is a 5 minute to waypoint warning which must be accepted first before the second alarm which is the actual alter course can be activated. My standing orders dictate that a watchkeeper is forbidden to accept an alter course request unless the ships position has been confirmed first. It also has a course limit alarm which can be set in 5 degree increments, i.e. the ship is not allowed to alter course by more than 5 degrees without operator intervention. Now that the errors on GPS have been taken out, there will be less spurious GPS positions which cause the system to want to alter course unnecessarily. In conclusion, an automated bridge system is very helpful to the mariner as long as the limitations of the system are known. It can only be termed as a 'lethal weapon' is if it put into the wrong hands.