A voyage data recorder is the one piece of bridge equipment whose value shows up on the worst day of a ship’s life. Until then it records quietly and nobody looks at it. That is exactly why a better VDR is so rarely bought: it is chosen at the minimum, as part of the yard’s package, by people who will never need it themselves.
I audit ships, and I have played back a lot of VDR data. This piece is my view from outside the equipment: what the IMO actually requires, what it leaves to the owner, and why the better option so rarely gets chosen.
What the IMO requires
SOLAS regulation V/20 requires VDRs on passenger ships and on cargo ships of 3,000 gross tonnage and above. For VDRs installed from 1 July 2014, the performance standard is IMO resolution MSC.333(90). It requires data to be kept for at least 48 hours on the fixed and float-free recording media and at least 30 days on the long-term medium (paragraph 5.4.3); older data may then be overwritten. It also requires that a performance test can be run at any time, such as annually or after repairs or maintenance (paragraph 5.1.3).
On audio, paragraph 5.5.5 says microphones should cover all the bridge work stations so that conversation is recorded, and that a normal speaking voice should be adequately intelligible on playback. The recording should not be masked by a single alarm or by noise, including wind, which is why at least two audio channels are required. Microphones on the bridge wings must be recorded on at least one additional, separate channel.
That is the floor. The standard says a wing channel must exist. It does not say where the microphone goes, how it is shielded from wind and machinery noise, or whether you can actually follow a conversation in a gale.
What the minimum leaves to the owner
Everything that decides whether the VDR is useful on the day sits above the minimum:
- Microphone placement and overlap. Are the bridge microphones covering every work station, and do their coverage areas overlap so that voices are muddied?
- Wing audio. The most important conversations between the Master and the pilot often happen on the bridge wing, not inside. Is the exterior microphone clear of wind and background noise?
- Feeds. If the system supports an input, connect it. The IMO sets what must be recorded; the maker decides what is possible; the owner decides what is connected.
- Playback. How quickly can someone find the moment, line up the audio with the radar and ECDIS, and export it?
- Saving. Who on board knows how to save data, and who has the authority to do it at two in the morning?
In my experience, I can usually get data out of almost any VDR in the end. But the systems with a good interface and a full set of feeds are consistently more useful. They save time, they are easier to follow, and they leave less room for argument about what a recording shows.
Why a better VDR is rarely chosen
Nobody in the chain is being irrational. The yard offers a default package that meets the standard, and it is usually accepted. A ship manager often does not know whether they will have the ship for one year or five, so spending on something whose value appears only in an incident is hard to justify. The budget is set by an owner who may not understand shipping, and a manager who asks for more risks being outbid by a cheaper one.
So the people who pay do not know, and the people who know cannot ask. The benefit also arrives only on the day nobody wants, which is why it is so easy to postpone.
It cuts both ways, and mostly in your favour
Better data can show where you were wrong. That is part of the reluctance, and it is worth saying plainly. But a VDR is also an excellent piece of equipment that can protect a ship and its crew when the fault was not theirs, or when they did everything right. Clear audio of the Master and pilot exchange on the wing may be the only record that shows what was said. A poor recording leaves you with no way to show it.
Make it a decision, not a default
I am not arguing that every owner should buy the most expensive unit. I am arguing that the choice should be made deliberately and written down. Before accepting the yard default, or at the next audit of an existing ship, ask:
- Where are the microphones, and has anyone listened to a wing recording in realistic wind?
- Is every feed the system supports actually connected?
- Can the officers on board find a moment and export it within minutes? I wrote about the gap between having the software and having the procedure.
- Who is authorised to save data after an incident, and does everyone know?
- Are the annual performance test results actually read, or just filed?
A one-page note from the manager to the owner can do the rest: “The yard default meets the minimum. Here are three upgrades and what they cost.” That moves the decision to the person who carries the risk. In my view the difference in cost is small next to an incident with no usable record.
Disclosure: I run VragaMarine, which offers VDR navigational audits. Regulatory references are to IMO resolution MSC.333(90).
Capt. Gaurav Khanna is a Master Mariner, the founder of VragaMarine and the editor of Maritime Dossier. He spent 18 years at sea on product tankers and crude carriers, trading the Persian Gulf, the North Sea and the Baltic, before coming ashore in 2013. He then spent 13 years ashore with a Japanese ship management company, rising to Senior Deputy General Manager…
Views expressed are the author's own and do not represent those of their employer.
LinkedIn profile
