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

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. 

source : safety4sea