IS S-100 SOLAS COMPLIANT ?

The answer is NO; S-100 is not SOLAS compliant because of Interoperability.

Only S-57 and S-101 ENC are permitted for ECDIS, but in the case where S-101 is published in aggregation with S-102 and S-98, what electronic chart is mandatory for use? S-101 ENC or the entire exchange set?

If an S-101 ENC cannot be used without S-102, then such ENC cannot be treated as official, in case, If S-102 cannot be used without an ENC, it means that S-102 is an integral part of it. Why then produce it separately? Is it logical to make ENC together with S-102 in a way they can meet S-101 requirements. If not, what is the official result of S-101 and S-102 combination? Which standard does it comply with?

Let's assume that within S-100 interoperability concept, the final product is the aggregation of S-101, S-102, and S-98, each of which complies with its own formats. In this case, what technical regulations must satisfy this summary aggregation and how can it be verified?

This is a direct contradiction to the SOLAS convention, which sets requirements for having ENC on board. In the situation of the joint use of S-101 and S-102, this is not the case; the ENC is obtained as result of S-101, 102, 98 combinations do not meet the requirements for electronic charts. It is impossible to produce, validate, or use it as ENC.

The S-57 and S-101 standards imply very strict requirements on topology related to seabed and land relief. This is logical because solving safety tasks ECDIS SW requires incoming data to cope with certain geometric rules. Combined results of S-101, S-102, and S-129 should also satisfy the same topological specifications, but we don’t see it as so. If the topological requirements for the combination of S-101, 102, and 98 are not met, how can such data be used in ECDIS for solving safety tasks? The mixture of data can lead to any problems and any results. How, in this case, can ECDIS be adapted to working with data such are not subject to any regulations?

This problem arises due to the interoperability concept, since S-101, S-102, and S-129 contain information about depths, hazards, and coastlines, a conflict appears because there are multiple values for depths, hazards, and coastlines at a single spatial point. The authors of S-100 propose to resolve this conflict via S-98, indicating which data from which sources should be used. These depths, for example, can be taken from S-102, this piece of coastline from S-101, and these depth contoursfrom S-129. Essentially, this process represents the ENC compilation in real time while loading data into the ECDIS memory. Getting validated data on this way is a few times more difficult, if possible, vs use of traditional pre-published and validated ENC.

Since the combination of S-101, S-102, and S-129 does not meet the ENC standard specifications, such combination is not ENC and cannot be used by ECDIS.

S-100 Interoperability beyond the scope of validation goes in conflict with SOLAS convention.

The practical way is to make ENC containing all necessary information and complying with international standards to perform QC&Validation on shore as ready product.

Interoperability as the main goal and main argument for S-100 implementation contradicts international legal safety regulations. Unless this issue is resolved the adoption of S-100 ECDIS technical standards is deemed unrealistic.