SIMON IRONSIDE

The Australasian Hydrographic Surveyors Certification Panel is seeking international endorsement for its certification process. If accepted, the process would become the national competency standard for hydrographic surveyors in New Zealand and Australia (subject to regulatory approval) and the certification would be recognised internationally.
 
To this end, the AHSCP has applied to the International Advisory Board on Standards of Competence for Hydrographic Surveyors (IAB) for recognition of the process.
 
Although already acknowledged as the de facto Australasian standard, international recognition will clarify the status of AHSCP certification, for the benefit of the relevant regulatory authorities. In effect, it would make them registered hydrographic surveyors, analogous to registered (or licensed) land surveyors.
 
The long-term objective is full international transferability of hydrographic surveyor certification. Recognition of certification schemes is currently outside the scope of the IAB, although it is considering changing this. The matter was discussed at a FIG Commission 4 (Hydrography) workshop in 2006.
 
The minutes of the workshop note that ‘the subject of international recognition or certification is contentious as it may conflict with standards and guidelines set out by existing national surveying authorities and programs at state and regional level. There has to be a mandate from sponsoring organisations to support these certification programmes and the cost associated with them.’
 
We do not accept that, in our case at least, endorsement is contentious. To see why, it is worth considering some background to the profession in our region.
 
The practice of hydrographic surveying in New Zealand and Australia predates land surveying by a considerable margin. We know that esteemed hydrographers – such as Tasman, Dampier and Cook – had charted significant areas of the coastlines of both countries prior to European migration and settlement.
 
However, the two surveying disciplines have evolved in very different ways. Until the end of World War II, the hydrographic arm was concerned exclusively with surveys for navigational purposes. And until relatively recently, it was a task that the Royal Navy undertook on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand governments.
 
The Royal Australian Navy assumed the responsibility for hydrographic surveying in 1920, and the publication of charts of its waters in 1942. The Royal New Zealand Navy assumed similar responsibilities in 1949.
 
Until the 1960s, hydrographic surveyors were primarily qualified mariners who had learned their surveying on the job, or Navy-trained hydrographic surveyors. Because their work was quite different from that of their land surveying colleagues, they were for many years excluded from the development and regulation of the surveying profession. But the 1960s saw an increase in exploration for offshore oil and gas, and the rapid development of ports and harbours. This created an unprecedented demand for hydrographic surveying skills, with a concurrent requirement for larger-scale, higher-precision work. By the 1970s, an international consensus was forming around the need for some form of regulation of the profession.
 
The first set of Standards of Competence for Hydrographic Surveyors was released in 1977, and is reviewed and updated by the IAB on a regular basis. (Visit www.iho.shom.fr to view the current ninth edition 2001.)
 
In Australia, efforts to provide a regulatory framework were pursued without success during the 1980s. A partial resolution was found through the coincidence of two events in the early 1990s. At the Hydrographic Society Symposium in Sydney in 1991, some 100 hydrographic surveyors voted unanimously to find a means of industry regulation and accreditation.
 
In 1992, the Institution of Surveyors, Australia expressed a wish to widen its membership to include all aspects of surveying. It agreed to the establishment of commissions for different specialities, modelled on the FIG commissions. The 1993 meeting of the Reciprocating Surveyors Boards of Australia and New Zealand was briefed on the need for the regulation or accreditation of hydrographic surveyors, and was supportive of the idea.
 
The ISA Hydrographic Commission was subsequently formed and charged with the task of establishing a means of accreditation. The Australian Hydrographic Surveyors Accreditation Panel was formed as a result. In 2003, the name was changed to Australasian to recognise co-sponsorship by the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors. In 2004, a further change made it the Australasian Hydrographic Surveyors Certification Panel. This brought it into line with the conventions of the newly-formed Spatial Sciences Institute.
 
AHSCP certification is increasingly recognised in Australia and New Zealand. A requirement for hydrographic surveyors to be accredited or certified is now regularly specified in government and port authority contracts, and in hydrographic surveying standards. It is often a prerequisite for employment. (Visit www.spatialsciences.org.au or www. surveyors.org.nz/hydrographic.asp for the latest version of the AHSCP Guidelines for Specialist Certification in Hydrography.) Applicants are assessed in accordance with the IAB Standards of Competence for Hydrographic Surveyors Category A and Category B qualification criteria.
 
Certification confers eligibility for membership of SSI, ISA or NZIS. However, certification is an open process, and a person need not be a member of SSI, ISA or NZIS to become certified. Successful applicants are not required to join any of these organisations.
 
They are certified to Level 1 or Level 2. This avoids confusion with Category A and Category B and recognises the important point of difference, which is evidence of appropriate experience.
 
Any person who meets the five certification standards is recognised as a Certified Professional (Hydrographic Surveying Level 1) or Certified Professional (Hydrographic Surveying Level 2). Applicants are assessed in terms of their overall expertise, rather than their hydrographic surveying specialisation.
 
One rapidly-evolving part of this process is the assessment of sea time. The existing requirement is largely based on Section 4.3 of the current edition of the IAB standards document, which states that: ‘Appropriate national organisations, or alternatively institutions providing a program which has been recognised, are encouraged to provide a certificate of field proficiency for successful academic students. It is suggested that such certificates be awarded only to students who present log book records demonstrating completion of at least 24 months of supervised field experience in hydrographic surveying, at least 50 per cent of which was afloat.’
 
For those without the Category A or B qualification, but with an appropriate surveying qualification, the requirement is expanded to cover 5 years of appropriate surveying experience. Of this, 2.5 years should be practical hydrographic surveying. For Level 1 certification, a substantial amount of the sea time component should be in-charge time.
 
The underlying philosophy of both the IAB and AHSCP sea time requirement is recognition that an understanding of – and familiarity with – the marine environment is an essential part of the hydrographic surveyor’s knowledge base. In fact, it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the profession.
 
Traditionally, hydrographic surveyors – mostly Navy employed – went to sea for long periods and sea time was regarded as an accurate measure of their competence.
 
This is especially so in the Navy. In hydrographic vessels such as HMNZS Resolution or HMAS Melville, sea time is a reasonable measure of competence. A wide variety of circumstances is met and dealt with under supervision, which is an ideal way to gain experience.
 
But civilian-trained surveyors do not spend their life at sea, and the assumption that sea time is an indication of competence is not necessarily valid. In fact, this component of the operational experience requirement undervalues their hydrographic specialisation. People who work in coastal zone management, or inland waterways or harbours, for example, have found it consistently difficult to meet this requirement, largely due to the nature of their work.
 
The panel has come to the view that, although sea time was intended as a de facto measurement to ensure a high standard of competence, it is not intended to exclude people from certain sectors. In terms of competence assessment, a comprehensive understanding of data collection and interpretation should weigh equally with an understanding of the marine environment.
 
As the profession evolves, it is essential that the certification process acknowledge these changes. Therefore, while it is important to remain consistent with IAB standards, the panel must be guided by contemporary practices, which the latest set of certification guidelines reflect.
 
The principle objective of all this work has been to certify a standard of hydrographic surveyor competence, thereby reducing the risks of work being undertaken by unqualified and inexperienced people.
 
The impact has been gradual, but over time the cumulative effect has seen the acceptance of the Level 1 and Level 2 standard as the de facto Australasian qualification standard. In the 13 years that the panel has been active, there have been several changes that make our original commitment even more valid. As a result, the level of responsibility borne by the hydrographic surveyor has increased considerably. However the AHSCP certification process gives employers and regulators confidence that those employed to survey at sea have met an internationally recognised standard of training, qualification and experience.
 
Simon Ironside, BSurv, MNZIS, MISA (H1), RPSurv, has been a member of the Australasian Hydrographic Surveyors Certification Panel since 2001, with responsibility for the Education and Industrial Offshore portfolios. He is a Level 1 certified hydrographic surveyor and a licensed cadastral surveyor and associate of Eliot Sinclair & Partners Ltd, a Christchurch-based surveying, engineering and planning consultancy.
 

Issue 39; February – March 2009