ECDIS knowledge gaps exposed: what 5,000 bridge team assessments reveal about navigational risk

Report

From Safety4Sea

The recently released NorthStandard ECDIS Training Assessment (ETA) Report provides one of the most revealing datasets yet on how bridge teams understand and use ECDIS onboard.

Based on more than 5,000 assessments conducted since February 2024, the report exposes a reality the industry has long suspected but rarely quantified: mandatory ECDIS certification does not necessarily translate into operational competence.

The findings are important because ECDIS today is no longer simply a chart display tool.
It is effectively the primary navigation environment onboard most SOLAS vessels.
When bridge teams misunderstand safety contours, datums, ENC updates, alarms, display layers or data quality indicators, the result is not merely inefficiency.
It creates elevated grounding risk, unsafe passage planning, alarm fatigue, positional inaccuracies and degraded situational awareness.

The report is particularly valuable because it moves beyond generic “training awareness” discussions and identifies where the actual knowledge gaps exist at a granular operational level.

What the ETA initiative is about

NorthStandard launched the ECDIS Training Assessment (ETA) platform in February 2024 as a structured competency assessment tool for bridge teams.
The objective is to evaluate practical ECDIS knowledge across the four pillars of passage management: Appraisal, Planning, Execution and Monitoring.

The platform is not designed merely as another CBT module.
It functions more as a diagnostic intelligence tool for identifying competency weaknesses at both individual and fleet level.
The assessment evaluates how bridge teams understand:

• ENC installation and updates
• Safety settings and contours
• Alarm management
• Display layers and scale usage
• Datum interpretation
• CATZOC and data quality
• Passage plan verification
• Monitoring and positional awareness

The report’s core message is clear: many bridge teams can operate ECDIS mechanically, but a significant portion do not fully understand the underlying navigational logic and limitations of the system.

That distinction matters enormously.

 

 

Why the report is important

The significance of the report lies in the fact that it moves beyond theoretical training discussions and quantifies actual operational weaknesses using real assessment data.

The findings suggest that while most bridge teams can operate ECDIS functionally, many officers still lack a strong understanding of the system’s logic, limitations and risk implications.
This distinction is critical.

Modern navigational incidents increasingly stem not from absence of technology, but from overreliance on automation, alarm fatigue, poor understanding of safety settings and incorrect interpretation of navigational data.

Among the report’s key findings:

• Around one-third of bridge teams lacked understanding of critical ECDIS features such as datum discrepancies and ENC updates.
• Nearly half failed to prioritise correct ENC scale during passage planning.
• Half of respondents struggled to distinguish alarms from alerts and highlights.
• Significant gaps were identified regarding safety contours, symbols, display layers and ENC update management.
• Perhaps most concerning, the report found that many bridge teams relied excessively on automated route checking without performing sufficient visual verification of planned passages.

The broader implication is clear: compliance with mandatory ECDIS certification requirements does not necessarily guarantee operational competency.

10 Key lessons learned from the ETA Report

1. Mandatory ECDIS certification is not enough
The report demonstrates that certified officers still show major competency gaps in operational ECDIS use.
Knowledge deficiencies appeared consistently across all four operational pillars.

This reinforces that compliance-driven training does not automatically produce operational mastery.

2. Datums remain a major industry weakness
Datum-related misunderstanding appeared repeatedly throughout the report.
Many bridge teams failed to understand WGS84 discrepancies, sounding datums and vertical datum implications.
This is dangerous because datum errors directly affect positional accuracy, under-keel clearance calculations and air draft assessments.

3. ENC updating is poorly understood
Nearly two-thirds of crews struggled to recognise ENC updates and understand update content.
This is not a procedural detail.
Outdated or improperly updated ENCs can create direct navigational hazards.

4. Officers overtrust automation
The report highlights overreliance on automated route checks and automated alarm logic.
ECDIS should support navigational judgement, not replace it.
Visual verification and critical assessment remain essential bridge team responsibilities.

5. Alarm fatigue and alarm confusion are still widespread
Half of the assessed personnel struggled to distinguish alarms, alerts and highlights.
Poor alarm understanding leads directly to alarm desensitisation, which is a recurring contributor in navigational incidents and casualty investigations.

6. ENC scale selection is frequently mishandled
Nearly half of bridge teams failed to prioritise correct ENC scale during passage planning.
Using the wrong scale can hide critical hazards or create excessive clutter that reduces situational awareness.

7. Safety contours are commonly misunderstood
The report repeatedly identified confusion around safety contours, deep contours and available charted depth contours.
This is one of the most operationally critical findings because incorrect contour logic directly affects grounding prevention.

8. Crews often do not understand data quality indicators
Many respondents misunderstood CATZOC, M_SREL, pick reports and survey reliability indicators.
ECDIS is only as reliable as the underlying hydrographic data.
If officers cannot assess data quality, they cannot assess navigational risk properly.

9. GPS overreliance persists
Some respondents reportedly believed GPS provides “100% accuracy.” This remains a dangerous mindset in an era of spoofing, jamming and sensor degradation.

10. Practical familiarisation is still weak
The report identified weak understanding of hover-over functions, display layers, symbol recognition, time zones and practical monitoring features.
This suggests that many officers use ECDIS functionally but not fluently.
There is a major difference.

Action plan for ship managers and maritime stakeholders

The ETA findings suggest that ECDIS competence should increasingly be treated as an operational risk management issue rather than purely a training compliance matter.

Ship managers and maritime stakeholders should consider the following actions:

Conduct fleetwide ECDIS competency assessments

Managers should identify vessel-specific and rank-specific weaknesses through structured assessments and scenario-based evaluations.

Prioritise high-risk competency areas

According to the report, urgent attention should focus on:

• ENC installation and updating
• Datum understanding
• Safety contours and safety settings
• Alarm management
• ENC scale usage
• Symbol recognition
• Display layer configuration

Strengthen practical, scenario-based training

Traditional CBT and generic certification alone are insufficient.
Practical simulator-based training involving real operational scenarios should become standard.

Rebuild manual verification culture

Bridge teams should be encouraged to challenge automation rather than rely blindly on automated checks and alerts.

Standardise ECDIS procedures fleetwide

Companies should harmonise:

• Safety setting procedures
• Alarm management protocols
• ENC update verification
• Passage planning standards
• Watch handover checks

Improve bridge audits and navigational assurance

Internal audits should focus more closely on actual ECDIS operational practices, including alarm settings, ENC management and safety contour logic.

Enhance type-specific familiarisation

Differences between ECDIS manufacturers and presentation libraries remain a source of confusion and require more robust familiarisation practices.

Integrate ECDIS competence into SMS risk management

ECDIS competency should become part of navigational risk assessment frameworks and not remain isolated within training departments alone.

Final thoughts

The NorthStandard ETA report sends an important message to the industry: ECDIS competency gaps remain widespread despite years of mandatory implementation.

The issue is no longer whether bridge teams can operate ECDIS systems mechanically.
The challenge is whether they fully understand how those systems behave under operational conditions, how to interpret their limitations and how to manage navigational risk when automation fails or becomes misleading.

As vessels increasingly depend on integrated digital navigation systems, strengthening operational ECDIS competence may become one of the most important loss prevention priorities for the maritime industry over the coming years.

Links :

• Marine News Mag :  Report: Many Bridge Teams Struggle with ECDIS Functions
• GeoGarage blog : ATSB: Cruise ship's chief mate distracted by ECDIS ahead ... /Investigation finds unintended risks with ECDIS navigation

Birth of a rainbow

第一次看到彩虹的诞生，这个摄影师好厉害。 pic.twitter.com/2F9JZEiGLn

— Gavinly (@Fengyi1811) May 29, 2026

The secret life of the Arctic: what's really happening under the ice

A snail fish, or Liparidae, passes near the upward-looking camera in Inglefield Bredning, Greenland. 

Far below Greenland's frozen surface, cameras have captured a rarely seen world where narwhals glide through darkness and strange deep-sea creatures drift beneath melting ice.

Researchers studying Inglefield Bredning Fjord lowered a video camera equipped with red lights and a hydrophone 260 meters (853 feet) to the seafloor.

Over the course of a week, they recorded rare sights including a backward-swimming fish and narwhal vocalizations, alongside other elusive deep-sea creatures.

 

From ArcticToday

Far below Greenland’s frozen surface, cameras have captured a rarely seen world where narwhals glide through darkness and strange deep-sea creatures drift beneath melting ice.

Researchers studying Inglefield Bredning Fjord lowered a video camera equipped with red lights and a hydrophone 260 meters (853 feet) to the seafloor.

Over the course of a week, they recorded rare sights including a backward-swimming fish and narwhal sounds, alongside other elusive deep-sea creatures, according to findings published in PLOS One.

The team’s primary goal was to study narwhals in the area, so they angled the camera upward to maximize observation without sediment clouding the lens — narwhals are known to approach filming equipment from above.
What they found exceeded their expectations.

“Arctic glacial fjords are hotspots of marine life, but they are understudied as a result of their remoteness and difficult access, particularly their seafloor ecosystems,” the authors wrote.

Although the camera caught only a single glimpse of a narwhal tusk during the filming period, researchers were rewarded with an entire hidden underwater world.
“Overall, the results show that portable moorings with video recorders are an important tool for exploration of the Arctic seafloor,” the study concludes.

Key Takeaways

 

• Elusive Arctic marine life on display: The footage documented a range of organisms living just above the seafloor, including shrimp, jellyfish, amphipods, copepods, snailfish, and narwhals.
• A strange backward-swimming fish drew particular attention: Researchers observed a snailfish drifting backward with its tail curled — a behavior rarely documented in the wild. “It curled its tail and remained motionless for at least 16 seconds before disappearing from view.”
• Narwhals were detected both visually and acoustically: Hydrophones recorded narwhal vocalizations nearly every day, and one narwhal tusk passed within centimeters of the camera lens.
• The system was designed to minimize wildlife disturbance: Rather than bright white lights, researchers used red LEDs, which are less visible to many deep-sea species, enabling more natural behavior to be observed.
• Dramatic shifts in “marine snow” were also recorded: Organic particles drifting through the water column doubled in concentration within hours and changed direction with tidal currents, underscoring how dynamic Arctic deep-water systems can be.
• The technology could expand Arctic monitoring globally: Because the system is relatively lightweight and portable, scientists say it could make long-term monitoring of remote polar ecosystems easier and more affordable.

Why It Matters

Much of the Arctic’s underwater world remains poorly understood — even as climate change rapidly reshapes the region.
Fjords like Inglefield Bredning are biological crossroads, where glaciers, ocean currents, marine mammals, and deep-sea ecosystems converge in ways scientists are only beginning to document.

This study offers a rare, direct window into that hidden environment.
Beyond its striking imagery, it demonstrates how new technology could allow scientists to track ecological shifts in real time as warming oceans, retreating glaciers, and shrinking sea ice reshape Arctic food webs.

What makes the research especially urgent is what it reveals about the limits of our current knowledge: the most consequential environmental changes in the Arctic are often happening out of sight — beneath the ice, below the surface, in the dark.
As the Arctic continues to warm faster than anywhere else on Earth, understanding these invisible systems may matter more than we yet realize. 

Utilizing hydrographic backscatter data

From Hydro by Onogateoghene Idoge

 
Seabed intelligence at scale for the blue economy

Hydrography has long been defined by depth.
From nautical charting to navigation safety, bathymetry remains the primary deliverable.
But many blue economy activities – offshore wind, subsea cables, marine spatial planning – demand more than depth; they need to know what the seabed is made of.
Backscatter, which is routinely collected alongside bathymetry, holds this answer – yet it remains underutilized.
In my view, this is no longer a technical oversight.
It is a missed strategic opportunity.

The global blue economy is valued at approximately US$2.5 trillion annually and continues to expand rapidly.
Offshore wind capacity alone is projected to reach hundreds of gigawatts in the coming decade, while subsea infrastructure – telecommunications cables, power interconnectors and carbon capture systems – is being deployed at unprecedented rates.
Each of these developments depends on reliable seabed characterization.
Yet traditional methods such as grab sampling, coring and video inspection remain inherently limited in spatial coverage.
They provide valuable point data, but cannot scale to meet modern demands.

Backscatter offers a different path.
Acquired as part of routine hydrographic surveys, it provides continuous seabed information across entire survey areas without additional acquisition time.
The data already exists.
The real challenge lies in how effectively it is processed, interpreted and integrated into decision-making workflows.

Hydrography beyond depth

Hydrographic surveying has traditionally focused on accurate depth measurement to support safe navigation, guided by S-44 International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) standards for hydrographic surveys.
Multibeam echosounding (MBES) has greatly advanced this objective, enabling high-resolution mapping of seafloor morphology.
However, MBES systems inherently collect more than depth; they record both bathymetry and backscatter simultaneously.
While bathymetry defines the geometry of the seabed, backscatter provides insight into its composition and physical properties.
As hydrography evolves to support broader applications, it is increasingly necessary to treat backscatter data not as a secondary output, but as a core hydrographic dataset.
What bathymetry alone cannot reveal

Backscatter represents the strength of acoustic energy returned from the seabed following sonar interaction.
Its response is influenced by seabed composition (mud, sand, gravel, rock), surface roughness and heterogeneity, acoustic frequency, incidence angle and environmental conditions.

Operational guidance from organizations such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that areas of similar bathymetry can produce significantly different backscatter signatures.
Whereas bathymetry describes geometry, backscatter reveals composition.

Figure 1: Comparison of bathymetry and backscatter from the same survey area, highlighting how similar depths can produce different acoustic responses due to seabed variability. 

(Image courtesy: NORBIT Subsea)

Why backscatter remains underutilized

There are various reasons why backscatter data is currently underutilized.
First, backscatter quality depends heavily on consistent sonar settings, vessel motion and survey design.
This sensitivity means that variations in acquisition parameters directly affect the reliability of the final mosaic.
Second, the intensity of the returned signal varies with beam incidence angle.
Without proper angular corrections, artifacts may obscure true seabed characteristics.
Last but not least, processing backscatter data is complex.
Unlike bathymetry, backscatter workflows lack full standardization.
Differences in processing methodologies can lead to inconsistencies across datasets, complicating interpretation.
However, these challenges are not limitations of backscatter itself, but indicators of the need for improved workflow discipline and training within hydrographic practice.
From data to insight: a practical workflow perspective

Transforming backscatter into a usable hydrographic product requires a structured and consistent workflow.
In survey operations I have been involved in, bathymetric data is processed using software such as QPS Qimera, CARIS and so on.
Backscatter is refined using tools such as QPS-FMGT to generate normalized mosaics.
Key factors influencing output quality include consistent acquisition parameters, appropriate frequency selection, radiometric and geometric corrections, and robust mosaicking techniques.
In other words, the transition from raw acoustic intensity to interpretable seabed information is not automatic.
It requires both technical expertise and deliberate workflow design.

Figure 2: Conceptual illustration showing variation in backscatter intensity with beam incidence angle.

Delivering value across industries

Backscatter is fundamentally a hydrographic dataset, but its value extends across multiple maritime sectors, including:Offshore energy: backscatter supports foundation design, cable routing and scour assessment by identifying sediment type and seabed variability, directly reducing uncertainty and optimizing engineering decisions.
Ports and navigation: it enables precise identification of dredgeable versus non-dredgeable materials, improving efficiency and reducing operational costs.
Subsea infrastructure: backscatter reveals hazards such as rock outcrops, boulders and mobile sediments that are not evident from bathymetry alone.
Environmental management: it provides scalable habitat mapping to support environmental assessments, conservation planning, and regulatory compliance.

These applications highlight how hydrographic data, particularly backscatter, directly supports critical blue economy sectors, transforming hydrography from a navigation-focused discipline into a key enabler of sustainable ocean development.
The future: calibration, data and intelligence

Historically, backscatter has often been used as a qualitative dataset.
However, advances in calibration, angular response analysis and processing workflows are enabling quantitative backscatter products.
When properly calibrated and archived, backscatter becomes a time-series dataset capable of supporting long-term monitoring of seabed change and predictive analysis.
Emerging machine learning techniques are further enhancing its value.
As these models require large, high-quality datasets, organizations that invest in backscatter today will be better positioned to leverage automated seabed classification in the future.
This is particularly critical in data-sparse regions where improved seabed intelligence can directly support national hydrographic development and sustainable ocean use.
Conclusion

Hydrography is no longer solely about measuring depth; it is about understanding the seafloor.
Backscatter is not an optional by-product – it is a critical dataset that enables this transformation.
Promoting hydrography in today’s context means demonstrating its value beyond navigation.
Backscatter provides a clear example of how hydrographic data products support modern maritime operations and the global blue economy.
In view of the expansion of the blue economy and the increasing demands on ocean data, the integration of bathymetry and backscatter will define the future of hydrographic surveying.
The real question is no longer whether to collect backscatter.
It is whether we are ready to use it to its full potential.

 

Figure 3: Processed backscatter mosaic showing tonal variations associated with different seabed compositions.
(Image courtesy: Geosciences/Craig J. Brown)

Links :

• International Hydrographic Organization (2020), Standards for Hydrographic Surveys (S-44)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Office of Coast Survey, Multibeam Backscatter Resources
• Lamarche, G., et al.
  (2011), Guidelines for Backscatter Acquisition and Processing
• Brown, C.
  J., et al.
  (2011), Mapping Benthic Habitats Using Multibeam Backscatter
• Buscombe, D.
  (2021), Machine Learning for Seabed Classification

Europe’s maritime frontline: undersea cables in the hybrid war era

 This content was paid for by Sopra Steria and produced in partnership with the Financial Times Commercial department.

 

As conflicts escalate and geopolitical tensions soar, the increase in subsea internet cable sabotage underscores a stark fact: the continent’s digital lifelines are vulnerable

In September 2025, the Associated Press reported that a ship dragging its anchor along the bottom of the Red Sea was likely to have severed two of the major telecoms cables connecting Europe and Asia.
Companies in India using Microsoft Azure were already experiencing delays to cloud services as network connectivity dropped almost 60 per cent.
Businesses in Pakistan lost access completely.
Industry estimates suggest the economic impact reached $3.5bn.

The incident was one of 150 to 200 cable disruption events recorded on average each year.
A comparable incident affecting European infrastructure would be considerably more expensive, given that 94 per cent of Europe’s businesses rely on internet connectivity.

The growing risk

To date, Europe hasn't experienced cable sabotage on the scale of the Red Sea incident, but as economies accelerate digitalisation, and global tensions increase, the risk is growing.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, 10 subsea cables in the Baltic Sea have been cut or damaged.
In early 2026, Russian submarines were detected in and around UK waters in close proximity to critical undersea cables.

The growing risk affects Europe’s push for innovation, with the EU aiming for at least 75 per cent of enterprises to be using cloud, big data or AI by 2030.
“While this is a policy target, it still points to heavy reliance on cables running from Europe to the US,” says Tony O’Sullivan, Chief Executive of RETN, a network service provider.
“These risks are often unseen, and companies need to understand where their data is processed.
Meanwhile, many European AI data centres are being built in Scandinavia, meaning mainland firms must connect via Baltic Sea routes that are relatively limited.”
“ ”
Companies need to understand where their data is processed

Subsea sabotage

During an era of hybrid warfare, undersea cables have become a potential target.
In 2023, Nato confirmed that Russia was “actively mapping” the critical subsea infrastructure of Ukraine's allies, suggesting it was highly likely it would aim to cut cables running through the Baltic Sea in an attempt to disrupt European communications.

“Areas such as the Baltics are at particular risk because the seabed is only around 100m or less at around 24km out," explains Christophe Eugene, Senior Defence Advisor at Sopra Steria, and a former rear admiral in the French Navy.
“If you drop your anchor or deploy a trawl net and start moving, it’s not only easy to sever a cable but also pretty easy to deny.”

In December 2025, a cargo vessel heading from St Petersburg to Israel severed an undersea telecoms cable running from Helsinki to Estonia across the Gulf of Finland by dragging its anchor along the seabed.
Russia denied any involvement, and the crew claimed the anchor had been lowered accidentally.

If you drop your anchor or deploy a trawl net and start moving, it’s not only easy to sever a cable but also pretty easy to deny

“Even if accidental, it’s a huge risk for companies because you need to reroute their internet traffic,” says O’Sullivan.
“In regional outages, traffic can usually be diverted across Europe, which can affect performance for real-time applications.
But larger disruptions can force data onto much longer routes – including via the US – adding around 150 milliseconds of latency.” This is enough to make video conferencing, high-frequency trading and online streaming unworkable, creating serious disruption in companies that rely on cloud-based tools.

The risk to European business is also compounded by the concentration of cable ownership in a handful of American companies.
“Technology companies were only using 13 per cent of international bandwidth demand in 2012 but now use 74 per cent,” says Lane Burdette, Senior Analyst at TeleGeography, a telecom data and analytics provider.
The same pattern exists in cloud computing, in which Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud control roughly 70 per cent of the European market, leaving local providers with only a small share.

Companies need to have contingency plans where, if something were to happen, they’re in a position to react

For years this concentration carried little political cost because transatlantic relations were stable.
But as tensions between the US and European allies rise, policymakers across the EU have become increasingly concerned about relying on infrastructure owned and operated by external organisations.
European spending on sovereign cloud infrastructure is expected to more than triple between 2025 and 2027, according to Gartner.
Yet even after onshoring cloud infrastructure, the majority of Europe’s social media, AI and other telecommunications data will still run through cables on the sea-floor.

Planning for greater cable risk

Europe’s reliance on foreign partners for technological infrastructure puts cable risk alongside cyber and supply-chain risk in enterprise planning, Eugene believes.
That means stress-testing connectivity assumptions, mapping dependencies and investing in fallback options for critical operations.

“Companies need to have contingency plans where, if something were to happen, they’re in a position to react,” says Eugene.
“So, as soon as one channel of communication cables is lost, they need to be prepared to switch to the other – and the other, today, is probably a satellite.”

FS-ISAC, the body that coordinates resilience across the global financial system, has urged companies to map which core services rely on subsea cable connectivity, incorporate cable disruption scenarios into disaster recovery plans, and assess whether they have sufficient alternative network routes and backup capacity in key regions.

For operators running networks worth tens of billions, the cost of waiting may soon outweigh the cost of acting.
As hybrid warfare strategies grow more sophisticated, and Europe’s cable infrastructure expands, the margin for complacency is narrowing fast.

 

Links :

• Pulse : The other Hormuz chokepoint nobody’s pricing in