Arctic Environment Preservation Through Grounding Avoidance

  • R. Glenn WrightEmail author
  • Michael Baldauf
Part of the WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs book series (WMUSTUD, volume 7)


Research results are described that explore technological innovation to reduce ship groundings and collisions by significantly increasing watchstander situational awareness to environmental conditions below the waterline. This is especially relevant to ship navigation in the Arctic requiring transit through shallow, draft-constrained coastal and archipelago waters that are relatively uncharted, lack aids to navigation, without adequate search and rescue facilities, and teaming with surface and underwater hazards to navigation. Such conditions and events create excessive risk to life and property through grounding and greatly expose the environment and wildlife to pollution damage through oil and chemical spills. Results of research accomplished to date are provided and strategies developed to enhance ship owner and operator diligence in better preparing for Arctic transits. Recommendations for future work in related capacities are also provided for enhancing the Polar Code, International Maritime Organization (IMO) carriage requirements and the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW).


Grounding Arctic navigation Underwater sensing Geo-referencing GNSS Spoofing Forward-looking sonar 



The opinions, conclusions and recommendations within this chapter are solely those of the authors and do not represent any official position or endorsement of the United States Coast Guard, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration or any Government or non-governmental organization or entity.


  1. ACCSEAS. (2015). ACCSEAS Final Report: Review of ACCSEAS Solutions through tests and demonstrations, 2015, IALA doc-id ENAV17-10.4.5.Google Scholar
  2. Allianz. (2014a). Allianz global corporate and specialty. Safety and Shipping Review, 3.Google Scholar
  3. Allianz. (2014b). ibid. 12.Google Scholar
  4. Allianz. (2015). Allianz global corporate & specialty. Safety and Shipping Review, 3.Google Scholar
  5. AMSA. (2009). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) 2009 Report. Arctic Council, 5, 23.Google Scholar
  6. AMSA. (2009a). ibid. 20.Google Scholar
  7. AMSA. (2009b). ibid. 127.Google Scholar
  8. AMSA. (2013, May). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA). Status on Implementation of the AMSA 2009 Report Recommendations. Arctic Council, 22.Google Scholar
  9. AMSA. (2015, April). Status on implementation of the AMSA 2009 report recommendations. Arctic Council, 16–19.Google Scholar
  10. AMTW. (2004, September, 28–30). Arctic Marine Transport Workshop. U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 2.Google Scholar
  11. ANCP. (2013, February 15). Arctic Nautical Charting Plan, NOAA Office of Coast Survey. Marine Chart Division, 7.Google Scholar
  12. ANCP. (2015, June 5). U.S. Arctic Nautical Charting Plan: A Plan to Support Sustainable Marine Transportation in Alaska and the Arctic (Draft for Public Comment): NOAA Office of Coast Survey Marine Chart Division.Google Scholar
  13. ARHC. (2011). National Report of Hydrographic Service of the Russian Federation Navy. In 2nd Arctic Regional Hydrographic Commission Meeting, Copenhagen, 28–29 September 2011; ARHC2-02B. 8.Google Scholar
  14. Baldauf, M., & Wright, G. (2014). New sensor technology integration for safe and efficient e-Navigation. In German Institute of Navigation (Ed.), ISIS 2014 – International Symposium Information on Ships (pp. 190–200). ISSN 2191-8392.Google Scholar
  15. Butt, N., Johnson, D., Pike, K., Pryce-Roberts, N., & Vigar, N. (2012). 15 years of shipping accidents: A review for WWF (p. 24). Southampton Solent University.Google Scholar
  16. Carmel, S. (2013, July). The cold, hard realities of arctic shipping. Proceedings Magazine, U.S. Naval Institute, 139/7/1,325.Google Scholar
  17. CGRDC. (2014). USCG Research and Development Center: Arctic Technology Evaluation 2014: August 8–30, 2014.Google Scholar
  18. Copely, J. (2014, October 9). Just how little do we know about the Ocean floor? Scientific American. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from
  19. Crystal. (2017). Retrieved January 18, 2017, from
  20. Dlouhy, J. (2015, July 10). Damaged Arctic icebreaker’s route questioned. Fuel Fix. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from
  21. Eason, C. (2010, June 22). Baltic Sea nations urged to act as groundings rise. Lloyds List. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from
  22. Eason, C. (2015, November 7). Finding the risks in Arctic shipping. Lloyds List. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from
  23. EMSA. (2009). Maritime accident review 2009. European Maritime Safety Agency, 16, 29.Google Scholar
  24. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.Google Scholar
  25. FLS-1000. FarSounder 1000 Navigation Sonar. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from
  26. Hains, D. (2014). Status of Arctic hydrography and nautical charting. In Arctic Regional Hydrographic Commission (ARHC) PAME II-2014 Whitehorse Yukon Territory, Canada, September 16, 2014, slide 16.D.Google Scholar
  27. Halpern, S. (2015). An objective forensic analysis of the collision between Stockholm and Andrea Doria. Retrieved July 29, 2015, from
  28. Hansen, S. (2015, July 9). Unpredictable arctic leaves energy underwriters in the dark, Insurance Day. editorial.
  29. HSRP. (2016, August, 30–September, 1). Charting the U.S. Maritime Arctic. Cleveland, OH: NOAA. Hydrographic Services Review Panel.Google Scholar
  30. IALA O-143. (2010, March 5). IALA Recommendation on Virtual Aids to Navigation, O-143.Google Scholar
  31. IHO 57. IHO Transfer Standard for Digital Hydrographic Data, Edition 3.1 - November 2000 Special Publication No. 57, Published by the International Hydrographic Bureau Monaco.Google Scholar
  32. IMO MSC.252(83). (2007). Revised performance standards for integrated navigation systems (INS). MSC.252(83). London: International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
  33. Kvam, E., & Jeannot, M. (2013, September 16–20). The Arctic testbed – providing GNSS services in the Arctic Region. In Proceedings of the 26th International Technical Meeting of the ION Satellite Division, ION GNSS+ 2013 (pp. 890–901). Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  34. Lundberg, J. (2015). Situation awareness systems, states and processes: A holistic framework. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science.
  35. Macfarlane, J. (2012). A list of the full transits of the Canadian Northwest Passage 1903 to 2006. Revised 2012.
  36. MAREX. (2015, June 9). NOAA to Boost Arctic Navigational Safety. Maritime Executive. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from
  37. Mazaheri, A. (2013, November 20). MMIMC contributors to groundings contributors to a grounding accident: What does evidence tell.
  38. MCIB. (2012a, January 13). Marine Casualties Investigative Body (MCIB), Cruise Ship Costa Concordia, Marine casualty. Report on the safety technical investigation (pp. 3, 13, 14). Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports (Italy).Google Scholar
  39. MCIB. (2012b). ibid, 53.Google Scholar
  40. MSC. (2008, December 18). Casualty-Related Matters’. Reports on Marine Casualties and Incidents, Ref. T1/12.01 International Maritime Organization. MSC-MEPC.Circ.3. Annex 2.Google Scholar
  41. NGIA 180. (2014). Pub. 180, Sailing Directions, Arctic Ocean (11th ed., p. 68). National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.Google Scholar
  42. Nicolas-Kopec, A. (2012, December). Transportation of HNS at Sea, Safemed II Project. Malta: International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation.Google Scholar
  43. NMD. (2011). Marine casualties 2000–2010 (p. 6). Norwegian Maritime Directorate, Strategic Safety Department.Google Scholar
  44. NOAA 16006. (2010). Bering Sea: Chart 16006, U.S. Coast Pilot, Alaska: Cape Spencer to Beaufort Sea. Washington, DC: NOAA, Chapter 8, paragraph 3.Google Scholar
  45. NOAS. Sonardyne Navigation and Obstacle Avoidance Sonar. Performance Summary.
  46. NSRIO. (2012). NSR Transit 2012 (for 20.11.2012). NSR Information Office.
  47. NSRIO. (2014). List of NSR transit voyages in 2014 navigational season. NSR Information Office. 2014.pdf
  48. NTDENR. (2015). Trends in shipping in the Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea (7.3). State of the Environment Report. Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources. Updated 29 May 2015.
  49. NTSB. (1990a). Grounding of the U.S. Tankship Exxon Valdez on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound near Valdez, Alaska, March 24, 1989; National Transportation Safety Board Report NTSB/MAR-90/04, July 31, 1990. v.Google Scholar
  50. NTSB. (1990b). ibid. Figure 2. 5.Google Scholar
  51. Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U., Hollnagel, E., & Baldauf, M., (2012, October). From Titanic to Costa Concordia - A century of lessons not learned. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 11(2), 151–167.Google Scholar
  52. Shell. (2015, July 22). Shell Alaska Receives Final Permits to Drill. Retrieved July 25, 2015, from
  53. Sullivan, M. (2013, March 4). Global warming will open unexpected new shipping routes in Arctic, UCLA researchers find. UCLA Newsroom.
  54. TAIC. (2014a). Inquiry 11-204: Container ship MV Rena grounding, on Astrolabe Reef, 5 October 2011. New Zealand: Transport Accident Investigation Commission.Google Scholar
  55. TAIC. (2014b). ibid. 13.Google Scholar
  56. TSB Canada. (2012a, April 26). Transportation Safety Board (TSB) Canada Report, Grounding of Passenger Vessel Clipper Adventurer 27 August 2010, Marine Investigation Report M10H0006, 29, 25.Google Scholar
  57. TSB Canada. (2012b). ibid. 8.Google Scholar
  58. TSB Canada. (2012c). ibid. 20.Google Scholar
  59. TSB Canada. (2013). Transport Safety Board of Canada. Statistics Summary Marine Occurrences, 3.Google Scholar
  60. UNDP. (2009). UNDP Project Document. 22.Google Scholar
  61. Wright, R., & Baldauf, M. (2014a, June). Collaborative navigation through the establishment and distribution of electronic aids to navigation in real time. In Joint Navigation Conference. Orlando, FL: Institute of Navigation (ION).Google Scholar
  62. Wright, R. G., & Baldauf, M. (2014b). Enhanced situational awareness through Multisensor Integration. In INSLC Conference, 15–17 September 2014. Buzzards Bay, MA: Massachusetts Maritime Academy.Google Scholar
  63. Wright, R. G., & Baldauf, M. (2015). Physical characteristics of virtual aids to navigation; Activities in navigation. In A. Weintrit (Ed.), Marine navigation and safety of sea transportation (pp. 61–68). London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, R. G., & Baldauf, M. (2016a). Hydrographic survey in remote regions: Using vessels of opportunity equipped with 3-dimensional forward-looking sonar. Journal of Marine Geodesy.
  65. Wright, R. G., & Baldauf, M. (2016b). Virtual electronic aids to navigation for remote and ecologically sensitive regions. Journal of Navigation, 1–17.
  66. Wright, R. G., & Zimmerman, C. M. (2015, October, 19–22). Vector data extraction from forward-looking sonar imagery for hydrographic survey and hazard to navigation detection. In IEEE/MTS Oceans Conference. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  67. Zhu, L., James, P., & Zhang, S. (2002). Statistics and damage assessment of ship grounding. Marine Structures, 15, 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zukunft, A. P. (2015, July, 14). Coast Guard and the Arctic. In 6th Symposium on the Impacts of an Ice-Diminishing Arctic on Naval and Maritime Operations. Washington, DC; reported from Sound Off, Workboat Magazine. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_ campaign=eNewsletter#sthash.qAMXvcTR.dpuf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GMATEK, Inc.AnnapolisUSA
  2. 2.World Maritime UniversityMalmöSweden
  3. 3.Hochschule Wismar, Institute of Innovative Ship Simulation and Maritime SystemsRostock-WarnemuendeGermany
  4. 4.World Maritime University, MaRiSa Research GroupMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations