Zone of Confidence Impact on Cross Track Limit Determination in ECDIS Passage Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the publication entitled: Zone of Confidence Impact on Cross Track Limit Determination in ECDIS Passage Planning presents factors affecting the value of Cross Track Limit (XTL) safety parameter, with special consideration to chart data reliability. The subject of the article is important from the point of view of navigation safety because chart data reliability depends on the quality of chart survey data, which in many cases are outdated and unreliable.

The publication does not define a very important element as it is the article type. In my opinion, this publication is the letter or technical note. Therefore, please define it. As for the publication structure, some chapters (introduction and previous research) must be corrected. Regarding the introduction, it is worth determining what is in each section of the article. However, in the previous research it is worth giving more examples, which show that bathymetric data on Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs) are outdated. This situation can be observed, for example, in the following publication:

• Specht, M.; Specht, C.; Mindykowski, J.; Dąbrowski, P.; Maśnicki, R.; Makar, A. Geospatial Modeling of the Tombolo Phenomenon in Sopot using Integrated Geodetic and Hydrographic Measurement Methods. Remote Sens.2020, 12, 737.

I also propose adding some references. It is necessary from 30 to about 40 references (at least), most of which should be research articles from recognized scientific journals from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) list. Moreover, the publication must be formatted in accordance with the requirements described in Instructions for Authors.

To sum up, after taking into account the above amendments (major revision), I suppose that this article is suitable for publication in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment,

Best regards 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented manuscript presents a novel and interesting approach to the safety of navigation through the use of some ECDIS functions. The manuscript is sound from the methodological point of view and fully publishable. However, I recommend that some minor changes are made as listed below:

• a figure explaining a difference between XTL, XTD and XTE would be beneficial for the reading experience;
• Line 81 - some 'another investigation' is mentioned but no details are readily available within the main text as it was with previously decsribed accidents - please at least provide names of the vessels;
• Line 89 - the first sentence in this paragraph contains a very strong statement that is not supported by any reference - please provide;
• Figure 1 - it is useless to provide so many details of the chart, please consider only providing the source diagram for betten reading of the Figure;
• lines 99-103 - some references are needed to support these statements;
• Table 3 (and others) - if values in two columns are the same, why providing the values for both port and starboard?
• Figure 2 - the values of XTD (XTL?) are given in cables (tenths of nautical mile). Meanwhile, in other parts of the paper, minimum XTL is calculated with meters' accuracy. Please briefly discuss this fact;
• Line 238 - the formula does appear to consider the fact that passage plan deviations must be made in order to e.g. avoid collision. This is probably included in dna parameter but is not discussed sufficiently elsewhere in the manuscript.

Based on the above, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted after these minor changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment,

Best regards 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript  presents a very interesting topic. However, in order to be publishable, it needs some enhancements based on the following remarks and proposal as.

1. The title of the article is “Zone of Confidence Impact on Cross Track Limit Determination in ECDIS Passage Planning”. The term “Zone of Confidence” appears only in the Title. It was not found in the text of the article.  Only the abbreviation ZOC is mentioned in some parts of the article such as:

• In section 3, lines 109-110 “Electronic Navigational Charts use the ZOC system to explain the survey quality”
• In section5, line Line 239 after equation 1.

2. Please describe briefly –in a proper section of the article- the ZOC system used in Electronic Navigational Charts –ENCs.
3. In section 2, Lines 81-82, is stated: “Another investigation of grounding incident highlighted importance of adequate XTL setting and revealed serious deficiencies in passage planning and execution [11].” The provided reference does not provide the expected information on this grounding incident, as it is with the incident of ref [8]: “Report on the investigation of the grounding of m/t Ovit in 347 the Dover Strait”. Please provide a more specific description and reference, such as vessel's name and the official report on the grounding incident.
4. In section 3:

• Consider restricting the content of Fig 1 to the source diagram on the left of the image. The rest of the image that is about 75% of the entire graphic refer to the title of the paper chart. This title can be mentioned in the title of fig1 rather, than inside the image. Higher resolution of the image in Fig 1 is required.
• Consider adding another figure, after Figure 1, for the graphical presentation of the ZOC system in the ENC, as stated in line 111:… graphically presented in the electronic navigational chart with respective symbol.
• Preferably, but not necessarily, Figure1 (for the paper chart source diagram) and the new Fig (for the ZOC system), should depict the same sea area.

In section 4 (Discussion), Table 5 - XTL values with regard to navigational, presents the suggested by company A minimum XTL settings. This is not clear in the title, or the content of the table and may lead the reader to the false impression that the values in Table 5 are suggested by the authors (suspect that there is explanation in the text). Please consider transferring the information of Table 5 in the text after line201, presenting the content of the table with bolts. Alternatively amend the title of Table 5 accordingly.

Section 5 needs some enhancement such as:

Lines 229-230 “Determination factors for minimum distance determination of navigational hazard were used in 230 this paper, with the addition of navigational area safety allowance”. Please expand and explain.

Line 239: Please define and describe ZOC. See remark/comment on the title of the article. Also in lines 109-110 “Electronic Navigational Charts use the ZOC system to explain the survey quality”.  Please describe briefly –in a proper section of the article-  the ZOC system used in Electronic Navigational Charts –ENCs.

Lines 259, 261, 262: The abbreviation LOA (length overall) is given in line 262. This must be done immediately after the 1^st mention.  

Please show the parameters of the equations (1) and (2) in relative figures.

Section 5 seems to fit better before section 4 (Discussion).

Ref 26 mentioned in Line281 is missing (there are only 25 references)

The last section (Conclusions) has the same number  as the preceding section (5. Determination of the XTL value in the ECDIS system with case study).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment,

Best regards 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The introduction is good and interesting.

The aim of the research is not clear.

One-quarter of the references are self-citations.

The article implies that all charts on the ships are old and unreliable. It is not clear either is this a fact or an assumption?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment,

Best regards 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Setting up XTL is a very important part of planning a voyage using ECDIS. Therefore, setting the standard for XTL is a very appropriate topic.

However, the originality of this paper is lacking because the proposed standard is a method used by some shipping companies.

And the verification of the proposed criteria is missing.

Submitted paper is close to a practical proposal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment,

Best regards 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank You very much for the corrections made. I suppose that
this article is suitable for publication in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Reviewer 5 Report

Unfortunately I am sorry that I have already decided 'reject' for this manuscript.