Abstract
This paper examines the debate on whether paper charts should continue to be utilized in commercial vessels. In particular, it assesses the arguments by Teams X and Y, who are for and against phasing out paper charts in merchant vessels. Additionally, the paper evaluates the Team members’ composure during the debate and highlights the methods the Teams used to convince the audience.
Debate Statement: The debate focused on whether paper navigational charts should continue being used on commercial vessels. One Team supported continued use, while the second Team favored adopting ECDIS.
Introduction
For decades, ship captains have utilized paper charts to navigate safely and accurately through waterways. However, advances in technology led to the widespread adoption of the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) on many ships, which promised better navigation and situational awareness. Like many inventions before it, ECDIS improved navigation efficiency and made the role of a paper navigator redundant. At the time of its invention, many ship captains who had used paper charts opposed the introduction of ECDIS primarily because they liked the status quo.
The chosen group for this analysis debated this issue in great depth. The central question in the debate was whether paper charts should still be used on commercial vessels. The debating Teams were two: Team X supported the use of ECDIS over paper charts, while Team Y opposed the introduction of the technology and favored the continued use of paper navigational charts.
Arguments in Favor of Paper Charts by Team Y
The debate moderator began by asking Team Y a question and seeking clarification on why paper charts should continue to be used on modern commercial vessels in this era. With characteristic confidence, a member of Team Y explained that retaining paper charts in commercial vessels was not only the right thing to do, but it was also necessary to ensure uninterrupted navigation. He quipped that the adoption of the new navigation technology was vehemently opposed by great ship captains who preferred the maintenance of the status quo, as it had served them without fail. Unlike electronic navigation charts, paper navigation charts are not subject to technical failure (Car et al., 2020).
The argument by Team X acknowledges the importance of navigation information being available at all times (Herwadkar, 2021). Given the susceptibility of technology to failure, the availability of paper charts for navigation ensures that a vessel reaches its intended destination without incident.
Another argument made by members of Team X for preserving paper charts is the ease of use and familiarity they offer. Unlike ECDIS, which is a relatively new technology, paper charts have been used for as long as humans have been able to commandeer a vessel onto the high seas. As such, using paper navigation charts was preferable to a technology whose reliability was not guaranteed (Palma et al., 2022). The complexity of ECDIS meant that mariners required specialized training, without which the risks of an incident increased exponentially (Car et al., 2021).
Team X maintained that seasoned mariners were well-versed in handling paper charts and that the adoption of ECDIS would further deteriorate the maritime workforce. By making this argument, Team X noted that paper navigation would be rendered redundant (Kastrisios et al., 2019). As such, rather than prioritizing efficiency, they chose to preserve manual navigators’ positions.
The third argument made by Team X concerned dependence on technology. Members of the Team noted that previous positions, such as radio operators, had become unessential due to technological advances. As such, they argued that introducing additional automated systems would lead to an unhealthy dependence on technology and the replacement of a reliable navigational practice (Ryan, 2023).
By preserving the position of a manual navigator, ships would have a way to call port even when systems are offline. By making this argument, the member of Team X drew on the fact that one inherent risk of adopting new technology is failure (Hays, 2023). Given the stakes in this case, a failure would have serious consequences, both material and financial. As such, the argument that paper charts are more reliable than ECDIS was correct.
The final argument made by Team X was on cost efficiency and the simplicity of the paper charts. The team members maintained that adopting ECDIS would require an initial outlay of tens of thousands of pounds. Such an investment, while possible with massive vessels, would be unattainable for smaller ones.
Therefore, it is argued that advocating for the system prioritizes the comfort and efficiency of large merchant ships at the expense of smaller ones. They argued that automation of the navigation function would increase efficiency (Kastrisios et al., 2023). Additionally, the simplicity of the paper charts meant that smaller vessels would not need to commit large sums to specialized training to operate the ECDIS system. With paper charts, the only issue would be storage.
Arguments by Team X in Support of ECDIS
Team Y supported the introduction of the ECDIS system to upgrade commercial vessel navigation. According to the members, the introduction of ECDIS is a natural progression as technology replaces tasks once performed manually on ships. Y Team members maintained that ECDIS is better suited for commercial vessels as it provides better situational awareness and is more effective than manual navigation. Additionally, ECDIS is technically superior to paper navigation charts, thereby reducing the risk of accidents (Dominguez-Péry et al., 2021). This has led to a relative increase in navigational safety due to the adoption of the technology.
The second reason for their stance was the environmental impact of paper charts compared to ECDIS. In an era when the government expects companies and customers to remain green, Team Y members argued that ECDIS would have the least environmental impact compared to maintaining the status quo. In particular, the creation of paper charts depletes the natural environment while their disposal contributes to pollution. On the other hand, ECDIS produces no physical waste and thus does not contribute to pollution.
Team Y also argued that by adopting ECDIS, ships would have access to greater interactive features. They pointed out that paper charts are inherently limited regarding the information they can provide to a crew. However, ECDIS offers advanced functionality that enhances its efficiency and enables commercial vessel crews to make informed decisions. Finally, they argued that the system would preserve space and storage capacity in ships. Specifically, maintaining multiple paper charts often consumes valuable space that could be used for other productive endeavors (Mellor, 2020). However, with the adoption of this technology, such concerns would be eliminated.
Style, Mannerism, and Audience Mood
With the first question from the moderator going to Team X, they took time to answer it comprehensively, making a case for preserving paper charts rather than adopting ECDIS. Both Teams are seated, with the debate moderator separating them. During responses to the questions, members of Team Y interject with Team X to raise points of contention that support their stance on the issue. In particular, they are keen to highlight that ECDIS increases situational awareness and is more interactive than paper charts. The debate takes an interesting turn when Team X notes that experienced captains prefer paper charts over the system. In the rebuttal, Team Y notes that the proposed changes would first be met with criticism, but that they would be necessary in the long run.
Personal Opinion on the Debate
Both Teams try to appeal to the audience’s emotions by highlighting the social aspect of the debate. In particular, Team X notes that adopting ECDIS would lead to redundancy, displacing thousands from well-paying jobs. For its part, Team Y notes that the system would increase situational awareness, ensuring that crew members always return to their families. Additionally, the Team tries to use facts and numbers to win the argument. Their body language remains largely calm as they are all seated during this debate. They refrain from raising their voices and generally conduct themselves with decorum throughout the debate. This conduct shows confidence in both Teams in the argument.
Conclusion
Team X and Team Y debated whether commercial vessels should continue using paper charts. Team X argued that paper charts should remain in use for familiarity, reduced reliance on technology, and cost-effectiveness. Team Y advocated adopting ECDIS, as it would offer commercial vessels the benefits inherent in new technology and eliminate the weaknesses of paper charts. In making their case, the Team members used emotional appeals and facts to engage the audience. Finally, they maintained a calm demeanor, which showcased confidence in their arguments.
Bibliography
Car, M. et al. (2020) ‘The navigator’s aspect of PNC before and after Ecdis Implementation: facts and potential implications towards Navigation Safety Improvement’, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(11), p. 842.
Car, M. et al. (2021) ‘Cross-section of Ecdis Education and training worldwide and in the Republic of Croatia: Relations between programs and user perceptions’, TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 15(2), pp. 267–275.
Dominguez-Péry, C. et al. (2021) ‘Reducing maritime accidents in ships by tackling human error: a bibliometric review and research agenda’, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 6(1).
Hays, C. (2023) Embracing digital transformation: unlocking the benefits of ECDIS charts, digital nautical publications, and electronic record books, Triton.
Herwadkar, N. (2021) Pros and cons of Ecdis or paperless navigation of ships, Marine Insight.
Kastrisios, C. et al. (2019) ‘Towards automated validation of charted soundings: existing tests and limitations’, Geo-spatial Information Science, 22(4), pp. 290–303.
Kastrisios, C. et al. (2023) ‘Increasing efficiency of nautical chart production and accessibility to marine environment data through an open-science compilation workflow‘, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 12(3), p. 116.
Mellor, T. (2020) The importance of ENC and ECDIS familiarisation, Admiralty Maritime Data Solution.
Palma, V., Giglio, D. and Tei, A. (2022) ‘Investigating the introduction of E-navigation and S-100 into bridge related operations: the impact over seafarers’, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 22(1), pp. 37–58.
Ryan, J. (2023). ECDIS is not a replacement for terrestrial navigation, MarineLink.