Reflecting on Twenty Years of Electronic Charts

Dr Fosco Bianchetti is Chief Executive Officer of C-Map, which he founded in 1986. He has been an innovative force in the field of marine electronics and is a recognised pioneer in electronic cartographic products and systems. In 1984 he co-founded Navionics, Italy, and conceived the first commercially successful electronic chart system.

Could you tell us a little about yourself, your background and career?

I studied electronics and computing at Pisa University. Then, having done military service in the airforce, I managed some large telecommunication projects in Europe and the Middle East. But never having planned life in a big corporation, when I had set aside enough money I went out on my own. Co-founding Navionics and then C-MAP I had to study electronic navigation from scratch. Our early development team being a one-man-band, I also had to catch up on the latest advances in electronic hardware, software and mechanical design. And this was the beginning of a new adventure.

From its beginnings in Italy in 1986, C-Map has now become a major global player in electronic charts. How did it all develop?

At the time when I launched C-MAP, others were apparently also fiddling with the idea of electronic charts. My idea was not as unique as I thought! What made the difference, and success where others failed, was my reckless bravery, so to speak. Instead of using commercial computers and software, we created everything from scratch. We developed our own proprietary digitising tools, operating system, navigation software, electronics, plotter cases, on down to the accounting/inventory software for the company. We even designed and produced our own trackball. Considering our limited resources, the money saved made a big difference, allowing us to invest in chart production. Quick availability of charts has been key to C-MAPÕs success, giving us a product optimised for our purpose, far ahead of most competing systems based on the integration of commercial sub-components.

Ships still carry paper charts today; what went wrong?

I think the paper I delivered in Baltimore at the 1992 ECDIS Conference, entitled 'The ECDIS Paradox', said it all. Marine navigation, especially commercial, has very similar vulnerabilities to aeronautical navigation and needs to be more regulated and controlled. Implementing such, as was done to aeronautical traffic with great success years ago, would require only simple electronic charts, supplemented by robust monitoring and control systems. Twelve years later, that paper is just as meaningful today. At the time it received much support. Unfortunately, however, IMO/HO bureaucracy, vested interests and tradition prevailed. ECDIS, which should have been a navigation revolution, was reduced to an electronic impersonation of paper charts. Moreover, the enormous potential of the private sector was first ignored, then feared and eventually severely constrained. Only recently has the attitude changed (although not everywhere), and this should expedite the transition. Our accelerating growth in the commercial sector over recent years indicates that paper charts may be here to stay, but soon most ships will have an ECDIS, or an ECS, on board.

Do you agree with the present state of the art of ECDIS, or should it have gone in another direction?

I believe that the direction taken was not, and is not, the best. We live in the real world, however, where few things are ideal. Mariners, and we ourselves, will make the best of the current state of the art. ECDIS could have been much more but today it has reached a stability that we must preserve and build on.

Do you have ideas on how to improve the acceptance and wide use of electronic charts on commercial ships (SOLAS)?

Beyond the ideas expressed in 'The ECDIS Paradox', the C-MAP vision to speed introduction and make electronic charts more appealing is based on one simple strategy: provide a real service to mariners. Anything that makes ECDIS easy to use and not limited by ENC availability will increase its acceptance. We have worked in this direction from many perspectives. Delivery of data: the customer can get all the needed data from us, official and unofficial, in one approved SENC format.
Data updating: our real-time updating service can be accessed automatically via various media.
Sale transaction: our contracts allow users to access large regions at a moderate cost, sparing them the aggravation of continually having to order individual charts.
Coverage: we supplement official coverage with our own high-quality data, thus extending use of the ECDIS/ECS beyond the limits of ENC availability (nobody likes to carry expensive equipment that is useless for any part of the voyage).

Do you think that at the end of the day the major commercial electronic chart producers could take over the distribution and perhaps also the production of official ENCs, providing them in type-approved SENC-format?

Today, commercial data based on official ENCs and distributed as an equivalent SENC (e.g. CM-93, certified by DNV) is already approved as equivalent to paper charts. This activity is an essential part of our strategy. Private producers already provide ENCs as subcontractors of HOs (C-MAP has a few contracts in place) and could certainly distribute them directly (subject to appropriate HO controls) as they leave the production line. Will it happen? Soon in some countries, but much later in others.

What are your views on the liability of commercial data producers for their data?

Liability was raised in the very beginning as a key issue in the electronic chart saga and a reason for keeping private companies at a distance. In reality, this too is a non-issue. Any product creates liability and risk for the producer. This is a legal issue, not a practical one. An autopilot can malfunction and ground the doomed sailor as easily as a flawed chart. Nautical charts have always been imperfect, and they will always have trouble representing the dynamic characteristics of the marine environment. What is ultimately at stake is negligence and guaranteeing that they are the best tools reasonably possible. C-MAP and others are perfectly capable of deriving quality navigation data, with no more or less faults than HOs. Therefore the real focus should be on how HOs use the private sector to reduce potential negligence and optimise navigation information. This will benefit navigators, and so also HOs and private companies.

What are your ideas about collaborating with existing HOs to set up and support newly-established HOs in third world countries, in particular regarding production lines?

We have always been so convinced that co-operation with HOs was good that we have invested in developing dedicated tools for them. Today, most HOs in the world use at least one of our software tools. We also co-operate with various organisations to promote development at HOs. Our technicians are regular instructors, and we often supply our tools for hands-on experience. We are very proud that these efforts, based on the quality of our personnel and products, are assisting many HOs to gain independence in their charting activities. We have just won two important contracts in the Mediterranean, co-ordinated by the IMO International Maritime Academy, to supply many local HOs with infrastructure and services aimed at rendering their aspirations a regional reality, with concrete benefits to navigators.

Do you think that Hydrographic Offices could improve their operation?

I have always believed that everything can be improved. In fact, I constantly drive my employees crazy with this belief! It must be recognised, however, that HOs suffer some limitations that are not so quickly overcome, and so their pursuit of improvement must consider these. Money is a major issue but maybe more important is HO perception of the private sector and how the two may proceed to mutual benefit. If suspicion and lack of knowledge could be overcome HOs would see that companies like C-MAP are trustworthy partners and not competitors. In this light, HOs could overcome many constraints and move forward in fulfilling their missions.

Some HOs market their data incorporated in a product, which competes with private sector products. What is your opinion on this?

We, as most of our competitors, judge the commercial activity of some HOs as unfair competition. For instance, none of the HOs that currently compete with us operates as an independent economic entity, obeying free market rules. They sell products and services with the intention of creating a profit but donÕt properly account for the expenses. They get taxpayer money, which is used indifferently for survey/compilation work and for commercial activities. The price of their products is political and not related to the economical survivability of the commercial operation. In fact, some HO offshoot organisations that operated at a loss in competition with us never went bankrupt. Again, the real issue is serving navigators and it is undeniable that the private sector has an important role to play. Why work to replicate private technologies and products when HOs can reap the benefits of these by co-operation with the private sector?

Finally, do you have any message for our readers?

Considering that your audience is mainly made up of professional hydrographers, I do have a message for them. HOs have a noble mission: to collect and to compile hydrographic data. They do it well. We believe in them to the point that we have dedicated an entire business sector to supporting them with tools and services. Distribution of charts to individual users (paper or electronic) is not where they can excel, however. This is where private companies, like C-MAP, are highly proficient and equipped to handle official data distribution and to supplement this with value-added offerings and unofficial coverage as needed. This is the vision of a partnership that would be far-reaching and truly serve navigation needs. We see this as the way to promote and accomplish the goal of protecting life, property and the environment