Supporting skills

development for the Blue

Economy

Dr EL Van Staden
International Navigation Simulator Lecturer Conference
6 September 2016, CPUT
 THE “NEW” DHET

The Department of Higher Education and Training was created by Presidential

Proclamation (No.8 of 2009, Govt Gazette No. 32387) on 7 July 2009, EFFECTIVE from 1
April 2010. The Presidential Mandate, requires DHET to:

 Create a coherent and single post-school education and training system that is
structured,
 Meet the aspirations of youth and adults
 Ensure that education, training and skills development initiatives respond to the
requirements of the economy, development challenges and the need to develop an
informed and critical citizenry.

The bringing together of all legislation governing higher education and training into
one department is an important development. It will:

 Enable the integration of education and training.

 Create new possibilities for responsive systems for the supply of education and
training.
 Create conditions to maximize cooperation amongst these components of the
learning delivery system.
 Provide opportunities to reconceptualise strategies for skills development within the
larger unified higher education and training system

2
DHET Organization Structure: University Branch

3
Operation Phakisa: Ocean Economy
• Operation Phakisa was launched by government in June 2014 to fast track the
implementation of specific large-scale programmes that have significant potential for
economic growth and employment in South Africa.
• Five Operation Phakisa initiatives: production of graduates required in specific scarce
skills professions – June 2014 (ICT in education; Health; OE; Mining; Agriculture)
• Purpose: determining projects for economic growth and to identify the challenges and
skills gaps needed to implement the projects
• One such programme involves the unlocking of the potential of South Africa’s oceans,
which has led to the launch of the Ocean Economy leg of Operation Phakisa in July
2014.
• Operation Phakisa: Ocean Economy focuses on four key areas: Aquaculture; Offshore
Oil and Gas Exploration; Marine Transport and Manufacturing; as well as Marine
Protection and Governance.
• Challenges:
 lack of an effective skills supply and demand mechanism;
 skills shortages in critical areas;
 current training efforts are fragmented;
 sector skills training are not at optimal levels; and
 recruiting lecturers and investments in training infrastructure in universities and
Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions -.
4
OPERATION PHAKISA: OCEANS ECONOMY

DEA, DPME, DOT, DPE, DTI, DMR, DOE, DAFF, DST, DHET, DPW, DRDLR, DOL, DHA, NT, DSBD, DOD,
EDD, DOW, NDT, DIRCO , DBSA, DBE, DWS

OCEANS ECONOMY FOCUS AREAS AND ENABLERS

It is estimated that the
oceans economy has the
potential to contribute
up to R177 billion to
Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) by 2033
(compared to R54 billion
in 2010) and create
approximately 1 million
jobs (compared to 316
000 in 2010).
 OPERATION PHAKISA: OCEAN ECONOMY MARITIME

Lab coordinating committee and

Inter – Ministerial Committee
5 Labs/ Aquaculture
Off Shipping Manufacturing
Industries Marine Protection & &
Gas & Oil Transport Manufacturing Aquaculture Shore & & &
and Ocean Governance Pharmaceuti
subsectors Mining Transport Construction
cals

Delivering DMR DOT DTI DAFF DEA SAMSA SAIMI NMMU

Units

DG’s Committee : Operation Phakisa Skills Plan Committee

Committee
DHET Chair : DOL; DST; DMR; DOE; DEA; DPE; DPW; DAFF; DWA; DPME

SAIMI
Working DHET Human Resource Development
Groups Chair CPUT Samsa UFH Industry
Council Task Team

Advisory Panel SAIMI/NMMU

DHET Experts from LABS,
9 HEI & 2 College Co-Ordinating
Representatives Function
DHET Skills planning committee
U/COLLEGE/Skills branches

STUDENT ENROLMENT PLAN

PROGRAMME & QUALIFICATION MIX
DHET role:
Ocean Economy – Governance structures
• Close collaboration with:
 the Department of Planning, Monitoring and
Evaluation (DPME) and
the Oceans Secretariat – DEA coordinating department.
• Delivery Units: DEA; DOT; DMR; DOE; DST; DHET; DAFF;
DTI
• Coordinate Mechanism to - Lab coordinating committee
• South African International Maritime Institute (SAIMI)
has been appointed as the delivery agent to assist the
DHET. SAIMI has established five multi-stakeholder
Skills Initiative Working Groups aligned to the Operation
Phakisa delivery areas.
7
DHET role:
Ocean Economy – SAIMI
• SAIMI established to ensure an integrated, coordinated
national response to the skills development needed to grow
the maritime economy: central skills development
planning, coordination, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation structure.
• SAIMI has established five multi-stakeholder Skills Initiative
Working Groups aligned to the Operation Phakisa delivery
areas.
• The Skills Initiative Working Groups (occupational Teams)
co-ordinate the planning of the maritime skills development
initiatives in the 3-foot plans of each Operation Phakisa
Oceans Economy delivery unit.
• The key deliverable of the Working Groups is a Skills
Development Strategy, Framework and Implementation
Plan for each delivery area for consideration by the
Universities
8
 OP Phakisa Oceans Economy / Maritime Industry
Phakisa Skills Development
Implementation
SAIMI with support from DHET
Specific

Multi Disciplinary 5 x Working Groups Chaired / Advised by Experts

Expert Panel Advisory Mechanism

Groups (All Role that are also Occupational Teams that include
Players) Delivery Units Leaders. Work is based on Phakisa 3
Foot Plans + HRDC TTT Work Plan

National
Departments linked DG Skills Plan Steering
Common

to Minister SteerCos Committee

+ Ocean Secretariat

Influence DHET
Strategic Plan + DHET Functional Units (HEI, TVET, Skills)
Annual
Performance Plan

Institutional HEIs + TVET / CET Colleges + SETAs/NSF

Delivery Targets
9
Skills Development Model
• The DHET in collaboration with the Phakisa “labs” will identify and
defined the full scope of the every Phakisa initiative to ensure no
duplication or re-inventing of wheels occurs.
• Role of SAIMI and Working Groups to inform on areas that need to be
addressed - to DHET.
• However the common structures remain a constant for all Operation
Phakisa initiatives with common and standardised approach
• The DHET may need to create a structure at an appropriate level within
the HRD, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (Branch)
that continually coordinates all Operation Phakisa Skills Development
processes. However should such a structure be created it must be very
closely linked to the centralised Skills Planning Unit in the DHET.
• The Expert Panel Advisory Mechanism may be required from time to
time to review the content of the skills development processes to
ensure that content are kept up to date and current with prevailing
technology. This is especially critical for qualification, curriculum,
syllabus and teacher / lecturer development processes.

10
Skills gaps and growth opportunities

• Skills gaps were noted in the following areas:

Maritime Skills in Public Service;
Maritime Skills in the field of Maritime Safety and Security;
Maritime Law and Maritime Business Services;
Marine Tourism and Leisure,
Maritime Construction,
Offshore oil and gas,
Fishing; and
Maritime International Diplomatic Skills.

11
Skills Development and Capacity Building
PROGRESS MADE
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
ISSUES ESCALATION

NO INITIATIVE PROPOSED MINISTERIAL ACTION

The targets set by Operation Phakisa in terms of production of officers by

universities (Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) & Durban
University of Technology (DUT)) is 240 each per annum. These institutions
Mid term review of have indicated that they can only be able to produce about 120 each per
Ministerial targets for annum due to capacity constraints. So the original Operation Phakisa targets
1.
human resource have to be revised and be included in the national enrolment plans.
priorities in 2020
Proposed action: Approval of new Ministerial targets and amendments to
National enrolment plan for 2019/20

The IMC meeting in March 2016 had resolved that a meeting between the
Minister of Transport and Minister of Higher Education and Training should
New strategy ito
take place to come up with a solution for the funding of the SA Agulhas. The
Dedicated Training
meeting has not yet taken place, and in the absence of such, other options
2. Vessel as the SA
such as utilising government fleet and commercial fleet for cadet training
Agulhas; distributive
(distributive training model) are being explored.
training model
Proposed action: Approval of strategy and funding requirements of proposal
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
PROGRESS - Marine Transport
DELIVERABLES/ CURRENT STATUS/INITIATIVES/PROGRESS
ACTIVITIES
Marine Transport Skills Initiative Working Group (Operational from August 2015)
(All 46 deliverables will be reported on as they come on-line)

1. Increase Throughput First-time entry enrolment figure - 150 (75 x Navigation and 75 x Shore-based). Graduation rate is 9%; graduates
at DUT to 240 Officers in April 2016 = 40
per year

2. Increase Throughput Total number of students in pipeline = 192. Students shall be released to the industry at end of next semester,
at CPUT to 240 officers i.e. approximately 87 cadets (S2) + 86 officers (S4).
per year

3. Maritime Studies at NMMU is in the process of introducing B Eng Tech Marine Engineering and will only be able to produce about 50
NMMU B Eng Tech graduates in 2021. Admin assistant appointed December 2015; Lecturer in Marine Engineering appointed in
Marine Engineering January 2016. Advertising of two lecturer positions: in Marine Engineering Knowledge (Chief Engineer) and
Naval Architecture is in process.

4. Ratings and Engineer Two TVET colleges (Umfolozi (KZN) and College of Cape Town (WC)) selected for Able Seafarer/Ratings
Officer Training at (Engine/Deck) training .First enrolment January 2017. At this stage this colleges will produce about 45 Able
TVETs: Deck or Engine Seafarers per annum. Train the Trainer course to be offered to lecturers to increase maritime awareness in July
Ratings 2016. Proposal for Marine Engineer training at TVET level under consideration.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
PROGRESS - Marine Transport …..
DELIVERABLES/ CURRENT STATUS/INITIATIVES/PROGRESS
ACTIVITIES
Marine Transport Skills Initiative Working Group (Operational from August 2015)
(All 46 deliverables will be reported on as they come on-line)

5.Training Berths Discussions underway on a distributive model for cadet training. Confirmed Cadet intakes (placements) for 2016
are as follows: Maersk Line = 11 new Cadets; Sea Span = 10 new Cadets; Klaveness = 6 new Cadets
Grindrod (Unicorn) = 6 new Cadets; Oldendorff Carriers = 6 new Cadets; MACS Line = 12 new Cadets
Vuka Marine = 6 new Cadets; BSM = 4 new Cadets. 24 Cadets were actively serving at sea during the reporting
period completing the on board practical components contained in their Training Record Books. Some initiatives
to expand number of training berths available – exploring utilisation of government fleet; exploring partial re-
mobilisation of SA Agulhas for training alongside (partially meets the STCW requirements and keeps the cadets
busy until training berths available); discussions with shipping lines not currently involved, e.g. Mediterranean
Shipping Co (MSC) – on both trading and cruise ship positions.

6. Career development Career awareness strategy in the process of being developed.

7. Maritime Focus Norms and Standards for Focus Schools issued for public comment. Deadline for comments (July 2016).
Schools.
Progress: Operation Phakisa Skills Initiative
Working Groups
Marine Transport
The following progress has been made:
• Increase Throughput at DUT to 120 Officers per year –
• Increase Throughput at CPUT to 120 officers per year – Current enrolments: Nautical
Science – S1 (cadets) x 43; S3 x 59 (Chief Mate); Extended Curriculum Programme
(ECP) x 19; Total = 121 students. Marine Engineering: S1 x (cadets) 44; S3 (2nd Eng
Off) x 27; Total = 71. Total number of students in pipeline = 192.
• Maritime Studies at NMMU B Eng Tech Marine Engineering – NMMU will only be able
to produce about 50 graduates in 2021.
• Maritime Studies at UNIZULU: Higher Certificate in Marine Engineering – UNIZULU will
only be able to produce about 50 graduates in 2020.
• Ratings and Engineer Officer Training at TVETs: Deck or Engine Ratings – Two TVET
colleges (Umfolozi (KZN) and College of Cape Town (WC)) selected for Able
Seafarer/Ratings (Engine/Deck) training. First enrolment January 2017.
• Training berths – Discussions being held on a distributive model. Engagements held
with relevant departments on the utilisation of the governmental fleet and the SA
Agulhas in progress.
• Career development – Discussions being held within SAIMI on the approach;
development of a career awareness strategy.
• Maritime studies at basic education level – Norms and Standards for Focus Schools
issued for public comment
16
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
PROGRESS - Marine Manufacturing
DELIVERABLES/ CURRENT STATUS/INITIATIVES/PROGRESS
ACTIVITIES
Marine Manufacturing Working Group (Operational from August 2015)
2 550 TVET graduates for Implementing Agents have been identified; MoUs drafted. Training to be linked to projects – discussion with
workplace-based learning DHET in terms of linking up with the SIPs process. Potential funders approached. Apprenticeships = 419.
programme; Train 18,172 Semi-skilled = 814 trained (650 still to be trained in 2016 in Saldanha Bay). Further information being
Learners as Artisans, Semi- gathered from implementing agents on current initiatives and progress made. Challenge is getting
skilled workers & workplaces – industry engagement workshop held in April 2016 where funding was raised as a concern –
Professionals over the next some industry players would be willing to offer workplaces if funding was available. Ernest &Young
5 years commissioned to conduct a study on industry-education partnership within the Marine Manufacturing sector.
Profiling of required candidates underway for inclusion into DOL Increase usage of Employment Services SA
(ESSA) system.

Establishment of Occupational Teams already established for Dock Master and Commercial Diving qualifications. An additional
Occupational Teams Occupational Team to be established for Naval Architecture.

Establishment of Centres of Discussions underway with Transnet to establish CoS within their regional training centres of excellence.
Specialisation (CoS) Initial sites identified – Saldanha Bay, Salt River, and Bellville.

Increase usage of MoU signed between DOL and DHET to link systems. Profiling for recruitment in progress.
Employment Services SA
(ESSA) system & targeted
career awareness services
as a high value recruitment
tool for Marine Transport &
Manufacturing
Progress: Operation Phakisa Skills Initiative
Working Groups
Marine Manufacturing
• Initiative 9 - Train 2,550 TVET College graduates on an 18-month Workplace-based Experiential Learner
Programme in scarce & critical Trades over the 5 year period: occupations in demand list compiled;
number of people to be trained (and location) in progress; TVETs requested to provide information on
current placements; draft MoA that will be signed with Implementation Agents (IAs) has been compiled,
and will now be sent for a legal review; information requested on current initiatives to determine
progress made; the challenge is obtaining workplaces. At the industry engagement workshop held in
April 2016 funding was raised as a concern – some industry players would be willing to offer
• Initiative 10 - Create dedicated Occupational Teams for MTM Sector (Professional, Trades, Operators &
Seafarers): Working Group to play a facilitating role, not necessary to establish Occupational Teams;
occupational Teams already established for Dock Master and Commercial Diving; the Working Group to
piggy-back on the DHET process for establishment of Occupational Teams on relevant trades. Concerns
have been raised about the period it takes to develop qualifications in SA.
• Initiative 11 – Establish Trade RPL/CBMT/Centres of Specialisation (CoS) in Saldanha Bay and Richards
Bay: Transnet regional training centres to be utilised to kick-start the process; NAMB in the process of
developing RPL toolkits.
• Initiative 12 – Train 18,172 Learners as Artisans, Semi-skilled workers & Professionals over the next 5
years: Challenges with workplaces, incentives proposed; List of companies (Western Cape and Eastern
Cape as a start) to be engaged for workplaces complied; MOA with Implementing Agents drafted,
including funding proposal framework; Training already taking place Information requested from PSDFs
– Semi-skilled = 814 trained (650 still to be trained in 2016 in Saldanha Bay).
• Initiative 13 – Increase usage of ESSA system & targeted career awareness services as a high value
recruitment tool for MTM: Profiling of candidates for recruitment is being finalised, will then be
discussed with the Department of Labour (DOL) for inclusion into the ESSA system

18
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
PROGRESS - Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration
DELIVERABLES/ CURRENT STATUS/INITIATIVES/PROGRESS
ACTIVITIES
Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Working Group (Operational from 2014)
Skills Strategy Roadmap The Roadmap was finalised by the Working Group on 4 December 2015 and has been submitted to the
Delivery Unit. SAIMI to ensure implementation. Research Chair – funding secured for the establishment of
the Research Chair. Discussion underway with National Research Foundation (NRF). Communities of
Practice (CoP) – discussions underway with the NRF for the establishment of a CoP that will draw on
expertise in the sector – to be driven by the soon-to-be established Research Chair. This will serve as a
stepping stone to the establishment of a Centre of Excellence. Vocational training centres scarce and
critical skills – to be linked to the Transnet initiative (regional training centres).
Progress: Operation Phakisa Skills Initiative
Working Groups
1. Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration
Skills Strategy Roadmap – The Roadmap has been finalised and was
submitted to the Delivery Unit in December 2015. merSETA has agreed
to set aside the remaining funding. SAIMI is in the process of
facilitating the implementation of the recommendations of the
Roadmap.
Research Chair – funding secured (TETA, CHIETA and EWSETA) for the
establishment of a national Research Chair in Petroleum Geoscience
and Engineering.
Centres of Excellence (CoE) and Centres of Competence (CoC) – The
establishment requires existence of local expertise from which to draw
from to form a CoE. It has been agreed that a Community of Practice
(CoP) be established
Establish vocational training centres for scarce and critical skills –
Transnet has been engaged on the possibility of utilising its existing
regional training centres. Other institutions such as TVET colleges will
also be engaged.
20
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
PROGRESS - Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration
DELIVERABLES/ CURRENT STATUS/INITIATIVES/PROGRESS
ACTIVITIES
Aquaculture Working Group (Operational from August 2015)
Development of a 3-feet 3-foot plan finalised. Workshop to be held in September 2016 to discuss the institutional framework for
plan for aquaculture skills aquaculture skills development. AgriSETA to fund the skills needs analysis – Terms of Reference (TOR)
development finalised and service providers identified.

Marine Protection and Governance Working Group (Operational from August 2015)
Approval of the 3-feet plan The Working Group has identified about 240 occupations relevant for the industry. This includes a proposed
for Marine Protection and list of qualifications and institutions. 20 new occupations identified and in the process of being published
Governance skills into Organisational Framework for Occupations (OFO).
development
Progress: Operation Phakisa Skills Initiative
Working Groups
4. Aquaculture
• The Skills 3-foot plan has been finalised and work will
commence based on the deliverables. A skills needs
analysis for the sector will be conducted and AgriSETA has
been brought in to assist. A workshop will be held in
September 2016 on the institutional arrangements for skills
development for the sector.

5. Marine Protection and Governance

• 240 occupations, ranging from Defence Force senior officer
to handy person have been identified – about 20 of which
are new occupations, ie occupations not presently listed in
the OFO Code. The list has been submitted to TETA for
further processing.
• No progress regarding the two additional Research Chairs
(maritime law and maritime security).
22
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING
PROGRESS

DELIVERABLES/ACTIVITIES CURRENT STATUS/INITIATIVES/PROGRESS

Marine Industry Artisans Training – welders, boilermakers, electricians

2014/2015 Artisans earned certificates (welders, 8,633

boilermakers, electricians)

2015/2016 Artisans targeted to earn certificates (welders, 12,066

boilermakers, electricians)

2016/2017 Artisans targeted to earn certificates (welders, 12,666

boilermakers, electricians)
Growth opportunities: Operation Phakisa OE
Marine Transport and Manufacturing
• Naval Architect
• Yacht Designer
• Marine Engineer
• Composites Technician
• Marine Draughtsman
• Ship Surveyors
• Ship’s Deck Officer
• Ship’s Master
• Industrial and Production
Engineer
• Shipbuilders / Boatbuilders
• Logistics and Materials
Management
• Forwarding Agent
• Shipping Agent
• Supply Chain Practitioner
(International Logistics)
Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration
• Subsurface Professionals specialised in
Petroleum Geosciences and Petroleum
Engineering; and Subsurface
Professionals without Petro-
Geosciences such as Geomaticians and
Hydrogeologists
• Petrophysics and Reservoir Engineers
• Project and Discipline Engineers
• Well Engineers
• Production Engineers
• Drilling Personnel e.g. Barge
Engineer;Drill Bit Engineer;
Measurement and Logging
Drilling/Engineer/specialists;
Cementing Manager; Drilling Fluids
Supervisor/Engineer; Wireline
Geophysical Logging Engineer etc
24
Growth opportunities: Operation Phakisa OE
Aquaculture
• Aquaculture Farm Manager
• Agriculture Scientist
• Water Quality Analyst
• Marine biologist
• General Aquaculture Scientist
(R&D)
• Agricultural Engineer
• Aquaculture Produce Manager
• Aquaculture Farmer
• Veterinary Epidemiologist
• Veterinary Parasitologist
• Veterinary Pathologist
• Veterinary Surgeon
• Animal Husbandry Scientist,
Animal Nutritionist,
• Aquatic Biologist
• Aquaculture Produce Analyst
Marine Protection and Governance
• Marine Atmospheric Scientist
• Climate Change Scientist
• Oceanographer
• Marine Geologist
• Statistical Ecologist
• Biodiversity Planner
• Marine Ecologist
• Marine Protected Area Manager
• Environmental Impact Assessor
• Marine Spatial Planner
• Maritime-Law Attorney; Marine-Law Attorney
• Environmental-Law Attorney
• Biodiversity Information Management Specialist
• Resource Economist
• Marine GIS Technician
25
DHET:
Funding - NSF
• The DHET has allocated two rounds of NSF funding for the
skills development component of the national cadetship
programme.
• R93, 610, 300 : from 16th August 2012 - 31 December 2015:
to benefit 647 learners across various programmes.
• DHET Memorandum of Agreement with South African
Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) – implementation of skills
development programmes in the maritime sector with
support from the National Skills Fund for the period 2012 to
2014:
-To support SAMSA to roll out the Maritime Skills Development
project
- the maintenance of the SA Agulhas I vessel to ensure quality
basic cadetship and ratings training of the learners (NSF
supported an operational budget of R20 million)
26
DHET: NSF……

• R296 million to the South African International

Maritime Institute (SAIMI)
- to coordinate maritime skills development as well as to
formalize the establishment of Operation Phakisa Skills
Initiative Working Groups to coordinate the
implementation of all the skills initiatives within the 3
Foot Plans.
- National Cadetship Programme (NCP) that will see the
numbers of young person’s being trained as Seafarers
continue to at least March 2018 (R96 million per annum
for three years for skills development).

27
Scholarships …..

• The Department has also received a request from the

Oceans Economy Secretariat in the Department of
Environmental Affairs to develop a proposal for 2 500
Scholarships from China as part of the South Africa-
China inter-governmental partnership on Maritime
Industries.
• The Deputy Minister will present proposal to Cabinet

28
 HEQSF
Articulation
Professional Doctorate Doctorate
Higher Doctorate
360 (10) 360 (10)
Progression

Professional Masters Research Masters

Research / Course work / technical Research / Course work / mini –
report / projects (45) dissertation (60)
180 (9) 180 (9)

Post Graduate
Honours 120
Diploma 120
(8)
(8)
Completion
of WIL
120 Advanced
Diploma
120 (7)
Professional Professional General
Advanced Degree Degree Degree
Certificate
120 360 480 360
(6)
Diploma Diploma (7) (8) (7)
240 360
Higher (6) (6)
Certificate
120
(5)
Application process at a glance

DHET for PQM

clearance
Accreditation
Confirmation
for Funding and
PQM Placement

Qualification
placed on CHE for
PQM – Ready Accreditation
to enrol

Confirmation
SAQA for
from CHE &
NQF
SAQA sent to
registration
DHET

30
 PROGRAMME AND QUALIFICATION MIX
DHET Mandate:

• First Point of Entry (of the process)

• Assess, Monitor and Manage Institutional Profiles for PQM
clearance.

The consideration of:

 The fit between the institution’s mission and its proposed programme
and qualification mix, as well as national or regional needs.
 Institutional capacity, in particular, qualified staff and academic staff:
student: ratio.
 Overall graduation rates and the graduation rates in the proposed
programme area.
 Past enrolment and graduation trends if the proposed new qualification
was building on a lower level qualification.
 The programme and qualification mix of neighboring institutions, as well
as indications of regional collaborations - regional review process

GUIDELINES - DHET WEBSITE

31
Blended learning - distance
education policy environment

32
Terminology - distance
learning
• The focus of this policy is on distance education provision which is not synonymous with
open learning.

• The growing convergence of the ways in which traditionally face-to-face and traditionally
distance education institutions offer their programmes is recognised.

• However, the policy continue to distinguish between ‘contact’ and ‘distance’ provision for
the foreseeable future: funding in the short to medium term as well as quality issues

• On average, contact undergraduate students spend 40% of their time involved in

scheduled campus-based activities.

• The term ‘distance education’: therefore refers to provision in which students spend 30%
or less of the stated Notional Learning hours in undergraduate courses at NQF Levels 5
and 6, and 25% or less in courses at NQF Level 7 and initial post-graduate courses at NQF
Level 8, in staff-led, face-to-face, campus-based structured learning activities.
33
 Thank you
Ngiyathokoza
Ke a leboha
Ke a leboga
Siyabonga
Ndo livhuwa
Enkosi
Ngiyabonga
Dankie
Title : The Importance of Graduate Attributes in Ensuring Safe,
Efficient and Sustainable Shipping

Author : Leon E. Govender

Head of Department, Maritime Studies, Durban University of
Technology

Abstract
In March 2011 the Durban University of Technology (DUT) launched its Curriculum
Renewal Project (CRP). The project was influenced by both external and internal
drivers. External drivers are national initiatives that impact on processes for
curriculum design and development, and teaching and learning. This includes the
new national Higher Education Qualifications Sub Framework (HEQsF), the Council
on Higher Education’s Quality Enhancement Project, the South African Qualification
Authority’s Level Descriptors, the International Maritime Organisation’s amendments
to the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers (STCW)
and the South African Maritime Safety Authority’s (SAMSA) Qualification Code.
Internal drivers embrace a number of innovations associated with the university’s
strategic focus areas and include the enrichment of the curriculum through general
education, student engagement and student-centeredness, internationalisation of the
curriculum and the development of generic graduate attributes.
The Department of Maritime Studies used the CRP to design a new qualification that
is academically, socially and industrially relevant as well as to develop further
qualifications. Through the process the existing qualification; which comprised of the
sea-going and shore-based streams; were developed into to two distinct
qualifications i.e. Diploma in Nautical Studies and the Diploma in Shipping and
Logistics.
Both diplomas, which incorporate the generic DUT Graduate Attributes, were
implemented in 2016 with the first cohort of graduates due to enter the industry in
2019. It is envisaged that the graduate attributes will be acquired through interaction
with fundamental, elective, core and capstone modules. Dubbed the “Big Five” the
generic DUT Graduate Attributes include: critical and creative thinkers who work
independently and collaboratively; knowledgeable practitioners; effective
communicators; culturally, environmentally and socially aware within a local and
global context; and active and reflective learners.

Graduate attributes are important from a maritime perspective. Shipping is

considered to be the lifeblood of the world’s economy and in order for shipping
operations to be conducted in a safe, efficient and sustainable manner requires an
educated and well trained workforce.

In this paper the author will address how a simulated environment facilitates the
development of graduate attributes thereby entrenching a safe, efficient and
sustainable shipping environment.

Page 1 of 14
1. Introduction
The Durban University of Technology (DUT) launched the Curriculum Renewal
Project (CRP) in March 2011. The university views the curriculum renewal project as
a:
“Vehicle through which the institution can create space for an engaged and
vibrant process of learning and development for both staff and students; a
dialogue that places student-centeredness and DUT as a locally engaged and
connected higher education institution within a wider global context at the
centre.” (Sattar and Cooke, 2014).

The project was influenced by both external and internal drivers. External drivers are
national initiatives that impact on processes for curriculum design and development,
and teaching and learning. This includes the new national Higher Education
Qualifications Sub Framework (HEQsF), the Council on Higher Education’s Quality
Enhancement Project and the South African Qualification Authority’s Level
Descriptors. In addition the department had to take cognisance of the amendments
to the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping of Seafarers (STCW) and the South African Maritime Safety
Authority’s (SAMSA) Qualification Code.

HEQsF

CHE
SAMSA
Quality
Qualification
Code Curriculum Enhancement
Project
Renewal
Project -
External
Drivers

SAQA
IMO
Level
STCW Code
Descriptors

Figure 1: External Drivers

Page 2 of 14
Internal drivers embrace a number of innovations associated with the university’s
strategic focus areas and include the enrichment of the curriculum through general
education, student engagement and student-centeredness, internationalisation of the
curriculum and the development of generic graduate attributes.

DUT's
Strategy
(2015 to
2019)

Graduate General
Attributes Curriculum education
Renewal
Project -
Internal
Drivers

International- Student
isation of the engagement /
curriculum centeredness

.
Figure 2: Internal Drivers

In this paper the author will address how a simulated environment facilitates the
development of graduate attributes thereby entrenching a safe, efficient and
sustainable shipping environment

The desire to develop graduate attributes at DUT is emphasised in the Vice-

Chancellor’s declared goal:
“DUT’s curriculum and pedagogy must be intentionally designed to prepare
our graduates for employment, while simultaneously preparing them for
critical citizenship in an emergent and still fragile democracy” (Sattar and
Cooke, 2014)

DUT’s Graduate Attributes Reference Group used the definition coined by Bowden,
Hart, King, Trigwell and Watts in 2000 as a working definition and will be adapted to
reflect the unique context of DUT (Sattar and Cooke, 2014). Bowden et al (2000)
defines graduate attributes as:
“The qualities, skills and understandings a university community agrees its
students would desirably develop during their time at the institution and,
consequently, shape the contribution they are able to make to their profession
and as a citizen. These attributes include but go beyond the disciplinary
expertise or technical knowledge that has traditionally formed the core of most
university courses. They are qualities that also prepare graduates as agents
of social good in an unknown future” cited in Barrie (2007), McCabe (2010)
and Sattar and Cooke (2014).

Page 3 of 14
The generic DUT Graduate Attributes proposed by the Reference Group include:
critical and creative thinkers who work independently and collaboratively;
knowledgeable practitioners; effective communicators; culturally, environmentally
and socially aware within a local and global context; and active and reflective
learners (Sattar and Cooke, 2014).

Critical &
Creative
Thinkers

Active &
Knowledgeable
Reflective
Practitioners
Learners
DUT Generic
Graduate
Attributes

Culturally, Socially,
Effective
Environmentally
Communicators
aware

Figure 3: DUT Generic Graduate Attributes

The author is of the view that the generic DUT Graduate Attributes can ensure that
shipping is conducted in a safe, efficient and sustainable manner as shipping is the
most international of all the world’s industries (IMO, 2000 cited in Hetherington, Flin
and Mearns, 2006). Global, economic, technological and social trends (Gow and
McDonald, 2000) have changed the way shipping companies conduct their business.

Modern day shipping is characterised as largely international and the most global
industry (DNV, 2004 cited in Progoulaki and Roe, 2011). Flagging out and the
reliance upon manning from developing countries has resulted in an increase in
multi-cultural and – lingual crews (Theotokas and Progoulaki, 2007).

Academic departments, including DUT’s Department of Maritime Studies, have an

important role to play to ensure that graduates have the requisite skills to gain
entrance into and maintain their place in the work force (Gow and McDonald, 2000).

Page 4 of 14
 2. The Role of the DUT Generic Graduate Attributes in Relation to Shipping
In this section the author will discuss the DUT generic graduate attributes and the
various nascent employability skills in relation to shipping. Table 1 below outlines the
graduate attributes, nascent employability skills in relationship to the various
fundamental and core modules that comprise the Diploma in Nautical Studies and
exclude the seven General (Liberal) Education modules. For the purpose of this
paper one nascent employability per graduate attribute will be discussed.
Graduate Attributes Module Nascent Employability Skills
Critical and creative thinkers who Navigation – Simulation (Radar Problem solving (critical thinking: Inquiry &
work independently and and ARPA) analysis; creative thinking), Teamwork
collaboratively Navigation – Simulation Leadership, Relationship management,
(Electronic Chart and Information Resourceful and responsible, Flexibility &
Display System) adaptability and Positive attitude
Marine Mathematics 1 and 2
Marine Science 1 and 2
Knowledgeable practitioners Navigation – Calculations 1 and 2 Knowledge and professional practice;
Navigation – Coastal and Ocean 1 Integrative learning; problem solving
and 2 (discipline); quantitative reasoning; project
Shipboard Management 1. 2 and management; digital and information
3 literacy; research literacy; academic
Ship Stability and Construction 1, literacy; modern tool usage – technology
2 and 3 applications; leadership; Flexibility &
Marine Engineering Systems adaptability
Navigation – Simulation (Radar Positive attitude
and ARPA)
Navigation – Simulation
(Electronic Chart and Information
Display System)

Effective communicators Communication Skills Written and oral communication;

Culturally, environmentally and
socially aware within local and
global context
Active and reflective learners
Computer Skills and Information Technology mediated learning
Literacy
Navigation – Simulation (Radar
and ARPA)
Navigation – Simulation
(Electronic Chart and Information
Display System)
Introduction to Shipboard
Operations
Navigation – Coastal and Ocean 1 Ethical reasoning; Intercultural knowledge
and 2 and competence; Civic engagement; Social
Navigation – Simulation (Radar responsibility; Global learning; Global
and ARPA) citizenship; Environment and sustainability
Navigation – Meteorology and
Environmental Management 1 and
2
Shipboard Management 1. 2 and
3
Navigation – Coastal and Ocean 1 Lifelong learning; reflection and evaluation;
and 2 personal and intellectual autonomy; career
Navigation – Simulation (Radar management; Integrative learning
and ARPA) Flexibility & adaptability
Shipboard Management 1. 2 and Positive attitude
3
Ship Stability and Construction 1,
2 and 3
Marine Mathematics 1 and 2
Marine Science 1 and 2
(Sattar and Cooke, 2014)

Table 1: Relationship between DUT Generic Graduate Attributes and Modules

Page 5 of 14
2.1. Critical and creative thinkers who work independently and
collaboratively
The first graduate attribute is “critical and creative thinkers who work independently
and collaboratively”. A nascent employability skill associated with this attribute is
teamwork.

Flag States acknowledged in the early nineties the importance of teamwork in

preventing marine accidents. A study by the Canadian Transport Safety Board in
1995 revealed that teamwork was “often” or “always” as important as technical
proficiency Hetherington et al, 2006). The importance of non-technical skills has
been recognized by the International Maritime Organization. The Manila
Amendments to the STCW Code recognizes the need for assertiveness, teamwork
and leadership including motivation (IMO, 2010).

Team cohesion is vital as crew work and socialize together in an isolated

environment for months on end (Barnett, Pekcan and Gatfield, 2003). Poor team
cohesion or lack of crew interaction can play a significant role in marine accidents.
The United States National Transport Safety Board has cited the lack of proper crew
interaction as a factor in many marine accidents (Hetherington et al, 2006).

2.2. Knowledgeable practitioners

The second graduate attribute is “knowledgeable practitioners”. One of the nascent
employability skills associated with this module is problem solving. Problem solving
includes critical thinking, inquiry & analysis and creative thinking. At the DUT it is
envisaged that “graduates will be effective problem solvers capable of applying
logical, critical and creative thinking strategies” (Sattar and Cooke, 2014). In addition
analytical and critical thinking has been identified by authors Bath, Smith, Stein and
Swann as a hallmark of any graduate irrespective of discipline (2007).

Historically maritime training focussed on the development of technical and

procedural skills (Barnett, Gatfield and Pekcan, 2006). This view is supported by
Hanchrow who states that maritime education is declarative knowledge based on
factual data and is not theoretical or open to interpretation (2011).

As early as 2000 there has been a shift in attitude towards the non-technical skills
such as problem solving. This is due to changes to business processes within the
maritime industry resulting in employers seeking graduates of the highest calibre
(Dinwoodie, 2000). This view is not supported by Hanchrow who argued that in
terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, maritime education could be at the lowest cognitive
levels i.e. knowledge and comprehension. He goes on to question the ability of
advanced programmes to address the higher level cognitive skills i.e. application,
analysis, synthesis and evaluation (2011).

Ghosh, Bowles, Ranmuthugala and Brooks have a contrary perspective. They

believe that higher level cognitive skills are required for performing in workplaces
such as ships so as to assimilate, analyse and structure information for decision-
making and problem-solving (2014).

Page 6 of 14
The importance of critical thinking and problem solving skills is also supported at the
Warsash Maritime Centre where skills are developed through practicing specific
techniques in a simulated environment. At the centre, “students learn through
observation of, reflection on and critical analysis of their own behaviour” (Barnett,
Gatfield and Pekcan, 2006).

The IMO through the STCW Convention gives further support for critical thinking and
higher level cognitive skills. Walcsak (1999) as cited by Ghosh et al argued that in
addition to integrating knowledge and skills in routine contexts, seafarers may
require critical thinking and higher level cognitive skills in order to operate in unique
and changing conditions (2014).

2.3. Effective communicators

The third graduate attribute is “effective communicators”. The importance of
communication as an attribute is supported by authors such Su (2014), Lappalainen
(2009), the Green Report of 1994 as cited by Farr and Brazil (2009), and Gow and
McDonald (2006). As an attribute, graduates will:
“demonstrate proficiency in communicating and presenting complex
arguments and ideas effectively in oral and written forms and to diverse
audiences” (Sattar and Cooke, 2014).

For the maritime industry effective communicative competence is extremely vital as it

is involves multilingual, - cultural and –national communication situations (Pritchard,
2003). This view is supported by Hetherington, Flin and Mearns as they argue that
communication is a core skill that is central to effective and safe production and
performance in all high-risk industries (2006).

Ineffective or breakdown in communication can contribute to accidents. This is

evident in maritime accidents reports from USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia
and Denmark in which communication related problems have been identified as a
contributory factor to a number of casualties (Pyne and Koester; 2005). The Nautical
Institute also supports this assessment of maritime casualties as “recent accidents
have shown that communications constraints have become a concern for ships’ crew
and owners” (2005). Further support is given by Chauvin, Lardjane, Morel,
Clostermann and Langard; they “identified absence of closed-loop communication”
and “insufficient communication about the salient features of the current situation” as
contributory factors to collisions at sea (2013).

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the maritime industry have
identified communication as a critical factor to ensure the safe operation of
international shipping (John, Brooks, Wand and Schriever, 2013). The importance
placed on communication by the IMO is evident as the Standards for Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW 78/2010) now requires seafarers
to have the ability to “understand the principles of, and barriers to, effective
communications between individuals and teams within the ship and maintain
effective communication”.

Page 7 of 14
From a maritime Industry perspective professionals, including Captain Fusao Abe of
the Marine Accident Inquiry Agency of Japan believe by improving communication
and sharing information the error-chain can be broken, thereby preventing accidents
(Nautical Institute, 2008). This is supported by Captain Jan Horck of the World
Maritime University. Shipboard operations require crewmembers to work together as
a cohesive team. Teamwork requires communication skills and with mixed crews
communication becomes even more vital (Nautical Institute, 2005).

2.4. Culturally, environmentally and socially aware within local and global
context
The fourth graduate attribute is “culturally, environmentally and socially aware within
local and global context”. The nascent employability skill selected is intercultural
knowledge as this is important from a maritime industry perspective. Cross-cultural
dynamics play an important role as many ships are manned by multi-cultural crews
necessitating cross-cultural interaction (Ircha, 2006) onboard vessels. Culture
defines how individuals understand themselves with respect to the environment
around them, reflecting their own personal world view which is developed by learning
from parents, teachers, elders, religious leaders and others (Ircha, 2006).

Failure to appreciate cultural diversity can result cultural isolation where crew
members of a different culture from the rest of the team is isolated and ignored by
the remaining team members (Barnett, Pekcan and Gatfield, 2003). In addition
cultural clashes could arise from misunderstandings and misperceptions of the
person’s world view (Ircha, 2006).

In the context of culturally diverse crew it is important and socially responsible that
the shipboard management is prepared for the task and is attentive of cultural
differences since national culture can influence communication vertically upwards
and downwards (Progoulaki and Roe, 2011).

2.5. Active and reflective learners

The fifth graduate attribute is “active and reflective”. Integrative learning has been
selected as a nascent employability skill. Integrative learning will lead students to
synthesize learning from a variety of sources, learn from experience and make
important and useful links between theory and practice. This approach of teaching
and learning is necessary in today’s world where technology and globalisation
transform knowledge practices in all disciplines (University of South California, no
date).

The maritime industry is a complex, fast evolving and global environment. To

succeed students must develop the intellectual flexibility to incorporate various
sources of information into their decision-making (Ithaca College, 2016). Integrating
knowledge is important for the shipping industry as the STCW recommends that in
addition to critical thinking, a seafarer’s competence should be determined by their
ability to integrate knowledge and skills in routine contexts (Ghosh, Bowles,
Ranmuthugala and Brooks, 2014).

Page 8 of 14
3. The Use of Simulator to evaluate DUT’s generic Graduate Attributes
within the Curriculum
The acquisition of the DUT generic Graduate Attributes will be achieved through the
completion of elective, fundamental, core and capstone modules. Simulator
exercises will be included in capstone modules. This will afford the lecturer the
opportunity to evaluate the graduate attributes in a simulated environment.

The simulator is a safe and secure environment to observe the manner in which
students handle cultural differences and similarities. Students will be required to
recognise, respect and appreciate the diversity of values in relation to race, culture,
ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality.

Cultural knowledge and teamwork will be evaluated using simulator exercises. In

these exercises the students will:
“Interact with one another as a team to navigate the ship to a specific
destination. The student will take turns to be a leader or member of the team.
The interaction will enable them to understand the attitude, behaviour and
confidence among themselves for team building capacity” (Radzi and Shukran,
2013).

This is easily achievable as DUT is a culturally diverse university. The department

will use this to its advantage as there is an emerging body of research that shows
that culturally diverse universities tend to create a rich and varied educational
experience that prepare students for a diverse workforce and society. Students will
engage in diversity-related activities such as intergroup attitudes, intergroup
understanding, social action engagement and appreciation of and respect for
diversity (Denson and Zhang, 2010).

Integrative knowledge will also be achieved through capstones modules. Capstone

modules will be used to engender the development of graduate capabilities that
employers are searching for. It will be used to provide experiences, collaboration
and integration of knowledge across the curriculum (Holdsworth et al, 2009). These
modules will be used to consolidate, extend and apply previous learning; and provide
a vehicle for professional socialisation and the development of professional identity
to assist students’ transition to employment (Acker and Bailey, 2011).

Simulation exercises will be included in a number of final semester modules.

Modules including Navigation – Coastal and Ocean, Navigation – Electronic
Navigation Systems, and Navigation – Meteorology and Environmental Management
have been developed as capstone experiences and will provide the culmination of
theoretical knowledge and understanding. This will give the student the opportunity
to apply the knowledge gained (Holdsworth, Watty and Davies, 2009) during the first
two and a half years of the Diploma in Nautical Studies.

High level cognitive skills such as problem solving will achieved through the
implementation of student centred learning strategies. This will include a flipped
classroom approach. The Vanderbilt University defines a flipped classroom as:

Page 9 of 14
  A reversal of traditional teaching where students gain first exposure to new
material outside of class, usually via reading or lecture videos, and then class
time is used to do the harder work of assimilating that knowledge through
strategies such as problem-solving, discussion or debates

As part of self-directed learning, students will be required to actively engage in

material such as Rules of the Road and case studies, and then integrate that
knowledge during the simulation exercises. Students will be required to assess a
collision situation and apply the Rules of the Road, instead of regurgitating without
understanding.

James, Chin and Williams argue that through the use of a flipped classroom student
engagement can be improved thereby preparing graduates to meet current maritime
industry requirements. They go on to state the acquisition of higher level cognitive
skills can be achieved through classroom activities such as problem solving skills
and the application of logical, critical and creative thinking (2014).

Another student centred strategy to promote problem solving will include

collaborative learning. Prasad, Baldauf and Nakazawa suggest that critical thinking,
reflection, enquiry and the development of a deep understanding of concepts can be
achieved through adopting a student centred learning approach and using
techniques such as collaborative learning (2011).

A simulated environment can provide a platform for collaborative learning, a DUT

generic Graduate Attribute. Collaboration can also promote teamwork, intercultural
interaction and communication. Through collaboration students can engage with
each other to assess the quality of information, verify its relevance, and accuracy;
and also search for missing information that might influence the decision (IMO, 2002).
The lecturer will be able to observe team member’s level of engagement,
contribution to the decision-making and respect shown to each other.

Simulation can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the communication

process during the exercises. As mentioned is Section 2.3, accident investigators
from USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and Denmark have identified
breakdown in communication as a key contributory factor with regards to groundings
and collisions. This is also supported by the IMO, Nautical Institute and International
Chamber of Shipping, amongst others.

Figure 3: Communication Process

Page 10 of 14
It is vital in the communication process that the sender selects the correct medium to
transmit the message and that effective feedback is received. Feedback is a means
to establish whether the message was received, and properly interpreted by the
receiver.

Consideration will be taken regarding “noise” or “interference”. In the maritime

industry “noise” can be physical noise as a result of the operating environment,
language barriers and cultural differences. “Noise” can lead to a breakdown in
communication resulting in collisions and groundings.

During the simulation exercises the student’s ability to communicate clearly and
unambiguously with other team members will be monitored throughout. Any
breakdown in communication could result in the unsuccessful completion of the
exercise.

4. Conclusion
It is envisaged that the generic DUT graduate attributes will contribute positively to
the Manila Amendments to the STCW Code with regards to assertiveness, teamwork
leadership, motivation and communication.

Shipping is truly a global industry. The five generic DUT graduate attributes will
equip the student with the nascent employability skills required to operate onboard
modern day vessels as shipping today is synonymous with multi-cultural, - lingual
and –national crews.

Simulator exercises will be one of the methods used to assess the graduate
attributes and related nascent employability skills. Acquiring the generic DUT
graduate attributes is important for students from the Department of Maritime Studies
as they have to compete with prospective cadets from other countries for limited
training berths.

It is envisaged that through the acquisition of the generic graduate attributes, DUT
graduates will make a positive contribution to modern shipping by ensuring that ships
are operated in a safe and efficient manner.

The effectiveness of the DUT generic Graduate Attributes requires proper monitoring,
evaluation and assessment while at the university. In addition feedback from
shipping companies employing DUT graduates will be obtained through completion
of questionnaires and at the department’s bi-annual Advisory Committee meetings.
Industry feedback is vital as it will allow the department the opportunity to modify its
practice. Rubrics and questionnaires are currently being designed by the
department

Page 11 of 14
5. Reference List

Barnett, M; Gatfield, D and Pekcan, C. 2006. Non-technical skills: the vital

ingredient in world maritime technology? [Online]. Available:
http://www.academia.edu/613149/Non-technical_skills_the_vital_ingredient _in_ wor
l d_maritime_technology. Accessed: 01/12/2014.

Barnett, M; Pekcan, C and Gatfield, D. 2003. Recent development in Crew

Resource Management (CRM) and Crisis Management Training. [Online]. Available:
http://ssudl.solent.ac.uk /433/1/ Embry-20Riddle-202003.pdf. Accessed: 01/12/2014.

Barrie, SC. 2007. A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy.

[Online]. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1 080/07294 3604 200
0235391#.VgN9_hEVjI U. Accessed: 14/12/2014.

Chauvin, C; Lardjane, S, Morel, G, Clostermann, JP and Langard, B. 2013. Human

and organisational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using
the HFACS. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Volume 59, pp 26-37. [Online].
Available: http://www.science direct. com.dutlib.dut.ac.za/science/journal/00014575.
Accessed: 14/12/2014.

Denson, N and Zhang, S. 2010. The impact of student experiences with diversity on
developing graduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education. Volume 35(5), pp 529-
543. [Online]. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com.dutlib. dut.ac.za/doi/ pdf/10.
1080/03075070903222658. Accessed: 18/11/2014.

Dinwoodie, J. 2010. The perceived importance of employment considerations in the

decisions of students to enrol on undergraduate courses in Maritime Business in
Britain. Maritime Policy and Management: The flagship journal of international
shipping and port research. Volume 27 (1), pp 17-30. Accessed: 14/12/2014.
.
Ghosh, S; Bowles, M, Rammuthugala, D and Brooks, B. 2014. Reviewing seafarers
assessment methods to determine the need for authentic assessment. [Online].
Available: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1660317485?pq-origsite=summon.
Accessed: 23/06/2015.

Gow, K and McDonald, P. 2006. Attributes required of graduates for the future
workplace. Journal of Vocational Education. Volume 52(3), pp. 373-396. [Online].
Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/p df/10.1080/1363682 000020 0126.
Accessed: 14/12/2014.

Grau, R; Martinez, IM; Agut, S and Salanova, M. 2002. Safety attitudes and their
relationship to

Hanchrow, G. 2011. Critical analysis and problem solving – merging critical thought
and assessments in modern maritime education. Paper presented at the
International Maritime Lecturers Conference, Croatia, Opatija. [Online]. Available:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/ document/view/25270772/critical-analysis-and-problem-
solving-a-merging-critical-thought. Accessed: 23/06/2015.

Page 12 of 14
Hetherington, C; Flin, R and Mearns, K. 2006. Safety in shipping: the human
element. Journal of Safety Research. Volume 37; pp 401-411. [Online] Available:
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0022437506000818/1-s2.0-S0022437506000818-main.pd f?
_tid= 4d bd 7520-7e28- 11e4-86c7-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1417967409318b3afd20
c95 29 f887 caff5f 23 55922. Accessed: 19/11/2014.

Holdsworth, A; Watty, K and Davies, M. 2009. Developing Capstone Experience.

[Online]. Available: http://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu .au/__data/ assets /pdf
_file/0020 /1761203/ Cap stone_Guide_09.pdf. Accessed: 02/05/2016.

IMO. 2010. Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers. 1st

Edition. IMO: London.

IMO. 2002. Ship simulator and bridge teamwork. Second Edition. IMO: London.

Ircha, MC. 2006. Maritime education in cross cultural settings. WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs. Volume 5(1), pp 37-59.

Ithaca College. 2016. Integrative Core Curriculum. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ithaca.edu/icc/what_is_it/. Accessed: 02/05/2016.

John, P; Brooks, B; Wand, C and Schriever, U. 2013. Information density in bridge

team communication and miscommunication – a quantitative approach to evaluate
marine communication. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. Volume 12, pp 229-244.

Lappalainen, P. 2009. Communication as part of the engineering skills set.

European Journal of Engineering Education. Volume 34 (2), pp 123-129. [Online].
Available:
http://www.tandfonline.com.dutlib.dut.ac.za/doi/pdf/10.1080/03043790902752038
Accessed: 14/12/2014.

Nautical Institute. 2008. Mitigating human error by improving communication. The

International Maritime Human Element Bulletin. Issue 16. [Online]. Available:
http://www.he-alert.org/objects_store/alert_16.pdf. Accessed: 20/06/2015.

Nautical Institute. 2005. Communication skills are vital to safe ship operations. The
International Maritime Human Element Bulletin. Issue 9. [Online]. Available:
http://www.he-alert.org/objects_store/alert_9.pdf Accessed: 20/06/2015.

Prasad, RA; Baldauf, M and Nakazawa, T. 2011. Collaborative learning for

professional development of shipboard engineers. International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology. Volume 3(3), pp 2308-2318.

Pritchard, B. 2003. Maritime English syllabus for the modern seafarer: safety-
related or comprehensive courses? WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. Volume 2(2),
pp 149-166.

Page 13 of 14
Progoulaki, M and Roe, M. 2011. Dealing with multicultural human resources in a
socially responsible manner: a focus on the maritime industry. WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer .com.dut lib. Dut.ac.
za/article/10.1007/s13437-011-0003-0/fulltext.html. Accessed: 14/12/2014.

Pyne, R and Koester, T. 2005. Methods and means for analysis of crew
communication in the maritime domain. The Archives of Transport. Volume XVII (3-
4). [Online]. Available: http://www.he-alert.org/filemanage r/roo t/site_ ass ets /st an
dalone_article_pdfs_0605-/HE00640.pdf. Accessed: 14/12/2015.

Sattar, K and Cooke, L. 2014. A position paper: conceptualising the quality

assurance of graduate attributes at the Durban University of Technology. [Online].
Available: www.dut.ac.za. Accessed: 10/05/2015.

Su, Y. Self-directed, genuine graduate attributes: the person-based approach.

Higher Education Research and Development. Volume 33(6), pp 1208-1220.
[Online]. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com .dutlib.dut.ac .za/d oi/pd f/10.1
080/072 94360. 2014.911255Accessed: 14/12/2014.

Theotokas, I and Progoulaki, M. 2007. Cultural diversity, manning strategies and

management policies in Greek Shipping. Maritime Policy and Management. Volume
34(4), pp 383-404. [Online]. Available: http://www.tandfonline .com /do i/pdf
/10.1080/03088830701539198#.VgQ9XhEVjIU Accessed: 23/06/2015.

University of South California. No date. Integrative Learning. [Online]. Available:

http://cet.usc.edu/resources/teaching_learning/learn/integrative_learning.html.
Accessed: 02/05/2016

Van Acker, L and Bailey, J. 2011. Embedding Graduate Skills in Capstone Courses.
Asian Social Science. Volume 7 (4), pp 69 – 76.

Page 14 of 14
 Study on Standardizing the Evaluation System of Crew Practical

Operation Skills
Jia Dongxing, Guan Keping, Shi Chaojian
(Merchant Marine College, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai 201306, China)
jia.dong.xing@163.com

Abstract: In order to reserve human resources in this current depressed shipping

market, crew training institutions in China hold lots of skill trainings, and accumulate
rich teaching ideas and practical experience. The current assessments to sailors’
performance, depending on the evaluators’ subjective opinions and different training
standards, can’t meet the rapid development of crew employment market. So it is
necessary to improve assessment process, and standard the assessment system.
Consider a method to decompose the whole assessment to several sub-processes, to
build available evaluation models and take proper weights to calculate result for every
sub-process, and summary all the sub-result to the final assessment result. Taking
inland vessel berthing operation as an example to describe this method. The improved
assessment process and standardized assessment system could influence the crews’
training, and may be the foundation of developing automatic assessment system in
future.
Key words: crews’ training; assessment process and system; automatic assessment
1 Introduce
By 2015, the total number of crews in China had reached more than 1.316 million[1],
and reached first in world. Crews’ training institutions hold lots of skill training to
prepare for the better shipping market after this downturn, and accumulate rich
teaching ideas and practical experience[2]. However, crews’ overall quality still need
to be improved and ship officers are still scarce[3].
At present, the basic education of navigation in China is mainly completed by
maritime colleges, and the relevant crews’ job training is held by maritime colleges
and training institutions. During the practical operation skill training, apply real
instruments and simulators to develop teaching, which needs bridge the gap
between theoretical knowledge and on-board experience better. The development of
the electronic navigation theory also affects the crews’ performance assessment and
navigation teaching model.
2 The necessary of standardizing assessment system
During the current crews’ performance assessment, the assessor summarizes every
trainer’s behavior and points out the weaknesses and strengths. Although assessors
are often composed of theory teachers and practical coaches, which all hold the senior
officers’ position on board, their different comprehensive on assessment system
decide crews’ score directly, which leads some random results[4]. The limited number
of assessors also makes the assessment process be held in some limited area, which
could hardly meet the rapid development of shipping education and the situation that
lots crews need performance assessment to grasp practical skill and management
knowledge for job promotion. So, improving assessment process and standardizing
assessment system could solve these problems to some extents, and also make the
foundation of developing automatic assessment in the background that the high
development of information technology makes intelligence examination possible in
future.
3 The assessment model of crews’ practical operation
3.1 Describing the process of practical sailing operation
Based on the rules for the competency examination and certification of seafarers
serving in seagoing ships, or simply 11 rules, a whole practical operation process,
designed by using marine simulator, is related to several inspects including ship
maneuvering, ship’s duty & anti-collision, bridge resources management, and every
inspect could be decomposed to several sub-processes. Figure 1 simply shows the
whole process, sailing from a anchorage to a port. During the practical sailing, the
assessor observes trainers’ performance from ship maneuvering, ship’s duty &
anti-collision, bridge resources management. The whole sailing could be simply
divided to three sub-processes, which are weighing anchor operation, sailing
sub-process, and berthing operation. Because of different focus, each sub-process
could be divided further to several sub-processes. For example, sailing sub-process
could be divided to sailing during poor visibility, emergency measure taking,
communication operation, and so on. Figure 2 shows a coordinate of the whole sailing,
taking ship position ( or time) as abscissa and sub-process as ordinate. Describing
quantifiably is the key to divide each sub-process, and taking suitable quantization
could make sub-process under a reasonable range.

Figure 1 the whole process of sailing from a anchorage to a port

Sub-process

Sailing sub-
Sailing sub- process
Sailing sub-
process i i+1(emerge Sailing sub-
process 0
（poor ncy process n-1
visibility） measure
taking)

Stand by，weighing
Berthing（or anchor），
anchor（or sailing
engine finish
unberthing）

Ship position (or time)

Figure 2 the coordinate of sailing process

3.2 Building the assessment model of practical sailing operation
During the whole sailing operation, the “ man-vessel-environment-management”
system engineering evaluation could be applied to describing the sub-process
quantifiably[5]. Trainers’ maneuvering skills decide the safety of sailing directly, while
environment factors and ship maneuverability influence trainers’ performance
importantly. Consider from trainers’ maneuvering skill, ship maneuverability and
environment factors to build a comprehensive model to evaluate trainers’ practical
operation performance, and take an assessment model and available influence factors
for each sub-process. Figure 3 shows the flow chart of assessment. After dividing the
whole process to several sub-processes, judge whether trainers are competent of the
sub-process, and decide whether the next sub-process is necessary.
Initialize Training environment

Dividing whole process

Deciding area of each sub-process

Y Y Y

Sub-process 0 Sub-process i Sub-process i+1 Sub-process n-1

Go on to next Go no to next Go on to next

N N N

Compute all these results

Final result

Figure 3 flow chart of assessment

Building evaluation index system is the foundation of crews’ practical operation

sub-process assessment[ 6 ]. Considering the subjectivity of evaluating practical
operation, use expert investigation method to build evaluation index system. Using
questionnaire to get expert experience and professional knowledge to decide the
influence factors, and using analytic hierarchy process to analysis the expert idea to
compute index weight. Considering the popularity of applying fuzzy comprehensive
evaluation in crews’ performance, choose fuzzy comprehensive evaluation as the
model in this paper. Figure 4 shows during computing of the sub-process i, building
evaluation index system and computing index weight at first, then using fuzzy
comprehensive method to compute the assessment result.
 Building evaluation
index system
Influence factor 1

Influence factor 2
model

fuzzy comprehensive
Influence factor i
method

Influence factor n-1

Influence n

Evaluation sub-process i

Figure 4 index system and model of evaluation sub-process i

3.3 The feasibility of automatic assessment system

So far, kinds of marine simulators are widely applied in maritime education, and
could offer realistic environment for maritime training. It is an inevitable trend to
apply marine simulator to design training environment for automatic crews’
performance assessment in future[7]. In China, most of studies about automatic
assessment system are mainly concentrated in Dalian Maritime University and
Shanghai Maritime University. Papers about automatic assessment system mainly
focus on radar plotting on Radar/ARPA simulators, while studies on automatic
assessment about shiphandling and BRM are still developed slowly[8]. An idea about
how to develop a model for constructing automatic assessment system is described as
shown in Fig5. After initializing training environment designed in marine simulator,
divide the whole training process to several sub-processes, and invoke suitable model
for each sub-process to finish the sub-assessment.
Shiphandling simulation Automatic assessment system

Sub-process i Owner ship Assessment model

Standardizing process
Target ship1
Determining index system

Target ship2
Weight of influencing factors

Target ship n signal collecting Objective index Assessment result

Subjective index

Figure 5 The structure of automatic assessment system

4 Taking sub-process of berthing operation as an example

On the base of dividing the whole sailing process to three sub-processes, considering
the similarity of computing during each sub-process, take berthing operation
sub-process as an example to describe how to divide a process into several. Building
evaluation index system and choosing suitable model are also described further.
4.1 Analyzing the process of berthing operation
The process of berthing operation starts when the vessel is drove to a proper distance
to the wharf, and the vessel should be controlled on suitable speed and course to finish
berthing, with or without aid from tugs. Figure 6 shows a simple path of driving a ship
to a wharf. Based on whether getting help from tugs or not, the berthing could be
divided to A operation process and A2 operation process, or A operation process and
A1 operation process. The A operation is mainly to control vessel on a suitable speed
and heading course for preparing berthing, while A2 or A1 operation process is to
finish the final berthing.

Target position

A2

A1

Figure 6 the path of driving a ship to a wharf

4.2 The evaluation index system of berthing operation process

Describing berthing operation without tugs in further, the operation result of A process
is influenced by the speed before wharf, the course θ between ship heading and
wharf line, the frequency of rudder using and so on. The operation result of A1
process is mainly affected by arrival speed, arrival distance, arrival course, and so
on. After finishing berthing operation, a general method to judge the result is from the
total cost of time, the safety of the whole berthing( whether damage to the wharf or
other ships ), the accuracy of position, the relativity of tack and reference line, etc.
Table 1 shows some influence indexes of assessment berthing operation.
After using the current experience to build evaluation index system of berthing
operation without tugs, applying investigation method to improve the index system
and compute weights, so that weights matrix is built.

Table 1 influence indexes of assessment of berthing operation

First grade indexes Second grade indexes
influence of wind and water
wind speed
visibility
Environment influence
the condition of navigational aids
indexes
navigation obstacle
complexity of channel
traffic density
 width and length of ship
Inner influence
loading status of vessel
indexes
vessel maneuverability
distance to limit of fairway
under-keel Clearance for Safe Navigation
validity of speed controlled
distance controlled to other ships
Sub-process A indexes
frequency of turning
frequency of engine
arrival speed
course between ship heading and wharf line
arrival speed
arrival distance
Sub-process A1 arrival heading
indexes course between wind direction and ship heading
frequency of turning
frequency of engine
distance between ship position and target position
distance to wharf and ships
Final result influence
the total cost of time
indexes
smoothness of trail
safety of berthing

4.3 The method to judge the final operation result

Because of the difference existed in object and subject, objective factors could be
measured directly, while subjective factors are always got basing on experience.
Objective value and subjective value consist evaluation matrix R, which
pre-multiplies weight matrix A is the result matrix, showing as formula 1
 r11 r12  r1m 
r r  r2 m 
B  A  R  (a1 , a 2 ,  , a n )   21 22  (b1 , b 2 ,  , b m )
    
 
rn1 rn 2  rnm 
formlula 1
Applying maximum membership degree law to compute the result matrix, and get the
final result value.
5 conclusions
Maritime education is the foundation of shipping industry, and even plays the overall
function in some level. Passing competency examination and certification is necessary
for seafarers serving in seagoing ships to promote job position, and influences the
development of maritime education. In order to obtain a fair objective evaluation
result base on crews’ performances, it needs to consider how to promote the overall
course teaching’s quality and improve levels of different training institutions. The
improved assessment process and standardized assessment system, talked in this paper,
may influence the crews’ training, and could be the foundation of developing
automatic assessment system in future.

6 Acknowledgments
The research was sponsored by grants from the Key Project in the National Science &
Technology Pillar Program (Grant No.2015BAG20B05).

7 References

[1] Wang Chaoqun. Research and Assess of Some Training Courses’ Effectiveness
Based on Chinese Seafarer Training’s Status[D]. Dalian Maritime University. 2015.
[2] PENG Yu, GAO De-yi, HUANG CHANG-hai, XIAO Ying-jie, YANG Wei-hua.
Research on the Design and Implementation of Crew Development Strategic Plan of
China[J]. China Soft Science, 2015, 09: 15-26
[3] Wu Zhaolin. The essence of the shortage of senior seamen and the
Countermeasures of our country[J]. World Shipping, 2011, 11:1-4
[4] Rendefu, wenxiaofei. A competency Assessment Mode for Seafarer Based on
Network Platform[J]. Marine Technology, 2008, 04:67-69
[5] Hu Shenping. Bridge Resource Management[M]. shanghai: Shanghai Pujiang
Education Press, 2013
[6] Wu Wei. The Evaluation of Seafarers’ competence[D]. Dalian Maritime University,
2009
[7] WANG Delong, REN Hongxiang, XIAO Fangbing. Automatic Assessment System
for Single-Target Collision Avoidance on Ship Handling Simulator[J]. NAVIGATION
OF CHINA,2015, 01: 44-48
[8] Wang Delong. Preliminary Study on the Ship Maneuvering Automatic Evaluation
System based on Ship Handling Simulator [D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University,
2013

8 Authors biography
Jia Dongxing, male, was born in 1988 in Shanxi province of China. He obtained his
master degree of engineering from Shanghai Maritime University with the major of
traffic information engineering and control in 2013, and works in shanghai maritime
university now. His main scientific interest includes Ship Handling Simulator System,
Desktop Multiple Navigation Simulation System and Networked Marine Radar
Simulation System, etc.
 Automatic Evaluation of Ship Maneuvering on Marine simulator

based on Fuzzy Structured Element Method

CHEN Jinbiao, CHEN Tingting, YING Shijun, ZHUANG Xinqing

(Merchant Marine College, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai,

China, 201306)

E-mail：jbchen@shmtu.edu.cn

Abstract: Now, marine simulator has been widely used in seafarer training

and examination. And then, the automatic evaluation system for ship

maneuvering based on the marine simulator has become more and more

necessary in order to reduce the subjective influence during the

examination. So, the general design idea of the automatic evaluation

system of ship maneuvering is proposed. And, considering different

conditions when ship navigating in one channel, for example, poor

visibility, narrow channel, several modules for different conditions was

designed to construct the whole system. Then, value sets of the trainees can

be extracted from the simulator to compare with the expert sequence in the

database. For illustrating the trainee’s performance comprehensively, the

fuzzy structured element method was introduced into the evaluation. This

method can not only describe the distance from the trainee’s operation to

the experts’, also can comprehensively reflect the uncertain degree of each

step during the trainee’s operation, which can provide more guidance for
the trainee’s further development. Finally, actual example was taken to

verify the model proposed.

Keyword: marine simulator; ship maneuvering; automatic evaluation;

fuzzy structured element method

Introduction
Marine simulator has been widely used in the seafarer training. But traditionally, the
assessment of the operation was based on the subjective judgment of the trainers,
mixed with the influence of the human factor. Therefore, more and more researches
have turned to the automatic assessment of ship maneuvering on marine simulator.
That is, based on the extracted real-time maneuvering data from the simulator and
comprehensive assessment model built, the score can be given automatically.
Certainly, many modern computer technology played important role in the whole
project, including database technology, programming technology, etc. And also
various comprehensive evaluation method have been introduced, especially the fuzzy
evaluation model, grey correlation model, AHP method, and so on. In which, because
of its systematic, structured, both qualitative and quantitative, and some other
advantages, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method was most commonly used. It
can better solve the problem that is fuzzy, uncertain or hard to quantify. However, the
fuzzy method can only give out the quantitative score or rank of the trainee but
comprehensively illustrate the trainee’s performance during the whole maneuvering.
Thus, the fuzzy structured element method was introduced into the evaluation to
optimize the traditional fuzzy method. This method can not only describe the distance
from the trainee’s operation to the experts’ or the standard data, also can
comprehensively reflect the uncertain degree of each step during the trainee’s
operation, which can provide more guidance for the trainee’s further development.
1. General procedure of the automatic evaluation of ship maneuvering on
marine simulator
For realizing the automatic evaluation of ship maneuvering on marine simulator, some
modules was designed and embedded into the simulator, including the index set and
weight set module, operation data extraction module and expert database,
environment module, as well as another module for the evaluation model, and so on,
as shown in Figure 1.

Trainer’s operation
Marine simulator
Score or Rank
Designed Index set module
Suggestions
environment Data extraction module
Uncertainty of each
Evaluation module
index
Database……
Experts’ operation
database

Figure 1 General procedure of the automatic evaluation on marine simulator

Before the evaluation, it is important to build the index system for each object. The
index should be suitable, scientific, complete, specific and operational as possible.
Regarding to the training code in China, the ship maneuvering contains three basic
aspects, which are ship navigation, ship berthing and unberthing, collision avoidance,
and some other ship operations under difference environments or special conditions.
Each step or aspect was designed to test difference competence of the trainer.
Then, after operating on the simulator, the value set of each index for every trainer
can be achieved automatically through the data extraction module and data interface,
also the experts’ operation data.
Both the data of the trainer’s and the expert’s were input into evaluation module
(fuzzy structured element method). Finally, the results can be displayed on the
simulator, including two parts: the score or rank of the trainer; the uncertainty of each
index during the operation. Based on the results, the trainer can easily find out which
part or step he still has some problems or is unskilled. Also, the trainee can give some
corresponding suggestions and guidance. In a word, this method can help further
improving the training effectiveness and reduce some workloads of the trainers and
the subjective influences.
2. Introduction of Fuzzy Structured Element
Let E as the fuzzy set in field of real number R, and E(x )，x  R is the membership
function. If E(x ) meet following properties: (1) E (0)  1， E(1  0)  E(1  0)  0 ;
(2) in interval [-1,0 ） , E (x) is a monotonically increasing and right-continuous
function, while in interval （0,1] is monotonically decreasing and left-continuous; (3)

when    x  1 or 1  x   , E ( x)  0 . Then, the fuzzy set E is called to be

one fuzzy structured element in R .
Assume that fuzzy set E has a membership function:
1  x , x  [1,0)

E(x )  1  x , x  (0,1] ,
 0, other

Then, E is called a triangle structured element.

So, for every fuzzy-valued function y~ , there always has a fuzzy structured function Ex
and one common function f (x) and one non-negative function  (x) , then:
~y  f ( x)  ( x) E . In which, f (x) is the kernel function, while the values of  (x)
x

reflect the uncertainty of y~ at the point of x , a kind of membership degree that the
discrete points belong to y~ , also mean a kind of distance between the discrete points
and the kernel function. And, the membership function of y~ can be expressed as:

y  f ( x)
 ~y ( y)  E ( )，y  Y
 ( x)
During the automatic evaluation of ship maneuvering on marine simulator, based on the
index system built and data extraction module, the value points of each index from the
trainers’ operations and also the experts (or the standard database) can be achieved.
These value points can be expressed in the following table 1.

In the table, x i(i  1,2, ,n ) means the index set. And y j (j  1,2, , m )

means m series of operation results on each index,

y ij(i  1,2, ,n ,j  1,2, ,m ) means the jth trainer’s operation data of the ith
index. Then, f(x i )(i  1,2, ,n )is the expert’s operation value or the standard
value, here, we call it the kernel function. So the fuzzy degree function  (x) can be

calculated by: (x i ) | y j (x i )  f(x i ) | based on the above brief introduction of

fuzzy structured element model.

Table 1 the value points of each operation
Index xi x1 x2  xn
y1 y 11 y 12  y 1n
Value
y2 y 21 y 22  y 2n
    
yj y m1 y m2  y mn
f ( xi ) f ( x1 ) f ( x2 )  f ( xn )
 ( xi ) (x 1 )  ( x2 )   ( xn )

According to the properties of fuzzy structured element, the membership degree of the

discrete points y j belonging to y~ is :

[y~](y j(x i ))  E((y j (x i )  f(x i )) / (x i )).

And, the membership degree for every points y j should be larger than the value of

parameter h , a designed membership degree, and h  [0,1] . Usually for the triangle
fuzzy structured element, h  0.5 ，and E (1 2)  0.5 . So, in order to determine the
function (x i ) , often using the fuzzy regression analysis method, let:

max E((y j (x i )  f(x i )) / (x i ))  h , then the fuzzy degree function (x i ) for
i

each trainer’s operation data set can be gained. The value of it can show that in which
index the trainer has larger uncertainty or vibration, which means he is not skilled or
qualified at this point. By that analogy, the performance of every point during each
trainer’s operation can be illustrated clearly.
3. Improvement of Traditional fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method:
Based on the above introduced method, the traditional fuzzy comprehensive
evaluation method can be improved. The steps are as follows.
1) According to Table 1 ， the index set is X  ( x1 , x2 , , xn ) , corresponding

evaluation decision matrix is Y  ( y1 , y 2 , , y m ) , after normalization processing,

that is: Y  ( y1 , y 2 , , y m ) ;

2) Based on the expert-consulting method and AHP, the weight set is calculated as:

A  (a1 , a2 , , an ) ;

3) Then, the comprehensive evaluation result can be calculated by traditional fuzzy

evaluation method, which is the score or rank for each operation. But, this is just
one part of the comprehensive evaluation.

4) According to the fuzzy structured element method, after building and

normalization processing the decision matrix Y , calculating the fuzzy degree

(x i )of each factor x i(i  1,2, ,n ) for every trainer’s operation, then rank

the fuzzy degree, so, the trainer and trainee both can directly find out which part
of the operation is still not qualified or skilled. This is another part of the
evaluation results.

5) Combing the two parts s of results makes the comprehensive evaluation more

scientific and complete, and can provide further suggestions for the development
of the trainers.
Besides, the method proposed is much more useful and complete than traditional
fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Also, it also has clear and simple logic
structure, easy to be realized on a computer. That is, suitable to the automatic
evaluation of ship maneuvering on marine simulator. Based on the related research
project, some actual experiments and working are under doing.
4. Conclusion
In order to improve the training and evaluation effectiveness, fully illustrate the
trainee’s performance, and realize the automatic evaluation on marine simulator, the
fuzzy structured element method was introduced into improve the traditional fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation method. Then, the results given out can not only describe
the distance from the trainee’s operation to the experts’, also can comprehensively
reflect the uncertain degree of each step during the trainee’s operation, which can
provide more guidance for the trainee’s further development. Although still under
research, it is with a good application perspective.
5. Acknowledgment:
The research was sponsored by grants from the Key Project in the National Science &
Technology Pillar Program (Grant No.2015BAG20B05).
6. Reference
[1] Wang Chaoqun. Research and Assess of Some Training Courses’ Effectiveness
Based on Chinese Seafarer Training’s Status[D]. Dalian Maritime University. 2015.

[2] PENG Yu, GAO De-yi, HUANG CHANG-hai, XIAO Ying-jie, YANG Wei-hua.
Research on the Design and Implementation of Crew Development Strategic Plan of
China[J]. China Soft Science, 2015, 09: 15-26
[3] WANG Delong, REN Hongxiang, XIAO Fangbing. Automatic Assessment System
for Single-Target Collision Avoidance on Ship Handling Simulator[J]. NAVIGATION
OF CHINA,2015, 01: 44-48
[4] WANG Shengyu, ZHANG Wanjian, CAO Kun. Safety Culture Assessment of
Tonghua Coal Group Based on Structure Element Method[J]. Journal of Liaoning
Technical University(Social Science Edition), 2010，12(3):259-262
[5] CHEN Tingting. Ship Track Fitting Based on Fuzzy Structured Element
Method[J]. Transportation Science & Technology, 2015(4):162-164

Author’s Biography：
Mr. CHEN Jinbiao was born in 1965 in Shanghai. Now, he is an associate professor in
navigation technology department Merchant Marine College in Shanghai Maritime
University, also holding oceangoing master competent certificate. And, July in 1985,
Graduated from Dalian Maritime University (PRC), major in Navigation Technology.
Then, July in 1995, Awarded with master degree, major in Traffic Information
Engineering and Control in Shanghai Maritime University (PRC).
His main study field covers the Navigation simulator & Navigation safety and
Navigation-aid system. During the working time, he also worked as a seaman (Deck
Department Officer) for several years, also participated in and taken charge of several
major projects on navigation simulator development and projects on port and fairway
navigation safety.
 THE NORMALISATION OF DEVIATION:
TRAINING TO PREVENT A SHORTCUT TO DISASTER

INSLC 19

Author: Steve Window BA(Hons) MSc CMgr FCMI SFHEA AFRIN VR

Summary:

This paper considers the paradox in merchant shipping operations whereby

accidents continue to occur at sea through the normalisation of unsafe practices.
It then examines the concept of human error, rational choice and situational
awareness before discussing the reflective process involved in debriefing
students undertaking simulation based training and assessment. It then
considers the impact that eye tracking software can have on training and
assessment processes in order to further determine the cognitive behaviour that
leads to poor decision making.

1
Contents

3 Background
4 Defining Human Error
5 The normalisation of deviation
7 Command and hierarchy in the maritime domain
8 Increased levels of automation
10 Knowledge shields preventing detection of a problem
10 The paradox of Merchant Shipping Operations
11 Training interventions to counter the paradox
11 The experiential learning cycle and the elements of the reflective process
14 Rational choice
15 Situational awareness

18 Eye tracking – examining the cognitive process

17 Impact on training and assessment

18 Summary

2
Background

On 3 January 2015, the Hoegh Osaka, listed, flooded and grounded on the
Bramble Bank in the Solent. The subsequent investigation conducted by the UK
Maritime Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) concluded that the ship left
Southampton with insufficient stability for the voyage. The fundamental
requirements for establishing, before departure, that a ship has a suitable
margin of stability for the intended voyage had been eroded onboard the Hoegh
Osaka, such that unsafe practices had become the norm. Furthermore, the
MAIB reported that both witness and anecdotal evidence suggests that this
practice extends to the car carrier sector in general. Allen Graveson, the
General Secretary of the seafarers union „Nautilus‟, described the incident as:

“…a damning indictment of the industry, raising disturbing questions

about the design and operation of such ships. The action taken by the
operators in response beggars belief – and is simply restating what
should be basic good practice.”
(Graveson, 2016)

Maritime accidents continue to occur across the entire industry, receiving

significant media attention [Costa Concordia, 2012] and it may be asserted that
the normalisation of unsafe practices extends beyond the car carrier sector,
despite education and training in the maritime sector shifting from being a
„localized and relatively unregulated area, to one subject to international scrutiny
and with common baseline standards‟ (Gerhard, 2012, p.25). The introduction
and implementation of the International Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers in 1978 (STCW 78) (IMO, 2011) may be viewed as
a significant effort to improve the level of accident prevention and safety
awareness. As part of the formal investigation into the capsize of the Herald of
Free Enterprise, nine years after the introduction of STCW 78, Sir Justice Sheen
(1987) considered that a „disease of sloppiness‟ (Sheen, 1987, p.14) pervaded
navigational practices in shipping operations, a sentiment echoed by Sir Peter
Cardy, then chief executive of the United Kingdom maritime and Coastguard
Agency (UK MCA):

“Standards and inspections alone will not create a flourishing safety

culture. We also need understanding of the source of safety – human
behaviour”
(Cardy, cited by Gregory and Shanahan, 2010, p.i)

International standards have been created, implemented and extended and this
is demonstrated by the significant amendments to STCW 78 in 1995 and again
in 2010, [the Manila Amendments]. The 2010 amendments have introduced the

3
requirement for mariners to undertake updating training. Notwithstanding these
initiatives to improve safety, accidents involving significant loss of life, cargo and
shipping continue to occur. Volker Dierks (2012), the head of the maritime
insurance company Marine Hull (Hamburg) considers that:

“Regulations are the sharpest weapons we have to improve safety”

(Dierks, cited in Allianz, 2012, p.28)

Notwithstanding a reliance on increasing the number and scope of regulations

and an increasing incidence of „criminalising the mariner‟ (Daniels, S., 2012),
accidents still occur. It would appear apparent that checklists alone are not the
cure to the problem, since shortcuts may manifest themselves in conducting a
„tick box‟ exercise rather than the conduct of thorough procedures. This paper
examines the concept of human error and how it occurs, through consideration
of the extent to which divergence from established rules and procedures
become normalised by personnel in seagoing roles. It then discusses how
Warsash Maritime Academy is incorporating new technology into simulator
exercises and discusses the utility of a phenomenological lens to the application
and interpretation of rules, in order to better assess and understand cognitive
processes demonstrated by experienced mariners.

Defining human error

Disasters in complex systems – such as the capsizing of the Herald of Free

Enterprise or the listing, flooding and subsequent grounding of the Hoegh Osaka
– can be considered perplexing. Despite computer systems and written
procedures, incidents seem to increasingly involve mis-operation of otherwise
functional engineered systems and small problems appear to cascade into much
more severe incidents (Woods et al., 2010). While analyses in a number of
industrial sectors have indicated that up to 80% of accident causes can be
attributed to human factors (Flin et al., 2008: Boeing, 1993: Hollnagel, 1993).
As discussed, in an attempt to reduce the incidence of human factors as the
main causal factor, today‟s maritime industry is regulated by a myriad of codes,
conventions and guidelines, each of which is to establish boundaries for safe
and efficient shipping operations. For those who consider human error as a
potential cause, human error may be defined as;

„…a specific variety of human performance that is so clearly and

significantly sub-standard and flawed when viewed in retrospect that
there is no doubt that it should have been viewed by the practitioner as
substandard at the time that the act was committed’
(Woods et al., 2010, p.4)

4
However, it is suggested that human error is a very elusive concept that
changes shape through the application of a wide variety of stakeholders having
many different perspectives (operators, regulators, system developers,
probability reliability assessment (PRA) specialists, experimental psychologists,
accident investigators and researchers who directly study „error‟ (Woods et al,
2010).

While the operators‟ are involved in the generation of the accident, it is the
investigators‟ who examine the causal factors and write the narrative to explain
how and why the accident happens. This narrative is subject to the benefit of
hindsight and it may be asserted that not only is it subject to bias, but the term
„human error‟ is utilised to apportion blame rather than to answer the „why?”
question (Dekker, 2006). Whereas the identification of apparently erratic
behaviour is perplexing, research sees something quite differently. To start with,
it finds that success in complex, safety critical work is dependent upon expert
human performance, as real systems tend to run degraded, through the fragility
of algorithms trying to cope with complicated factors. Furthermore, there are
lawful relationships governing the different aspects of human performance,
cognitive work, coordinated activity and individuals‟ reactions to failure or the
probability of failure (Woods et al., 2010). Since these are not the natural laws
of physiology, aerodynamics or thermodynamics, but rather the control laws of
cognitive and social sciences. Consequently, it is argued that human error
should not be the conclusion of an investigation, but that it should be the starting
point (Dekker, 2006). From this starting point it is necessary to consider what is
meant by the normalisation of deviation.

The normalisation of deviation

When a practitioner makes a technical mistake, he or she may be performing

their role diligently, but their present skills fall short of what the task requires
(Dekker, 2012). Dekker considers that for an error to be constructed as
technical, it has to meet two conditions:

 The frequency or seriousness should decrease as experience is gained

by the practitioner; and

 The practitioner involved should see the error as an opportunity for

learning and improvement.
(Dekker, 2012)

Technical errors say something about the practitioner‟s level of training or

experience and are seen to be „part of the game‟ of learning through doing and
of continuous improvement as skills are honed. Although professionals should
not be afraid of making mistakes, they should be aware of not learning from the
5
ones that they do make. Denial, or defensive posturing discourages such
learning, allowing the trainee to subordinate and de-legitimise a mistake by
turning it into something shameful that should be ignored. Such denial turns a
technical error into a normative one (Dekker, 2012).

Normative errors are due to not discharging professional responsibility diligently

(Dekker, 2012) or not following accepted Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).
This may occur incrementally as a gradual erosion of normal procedures that
would never be tolerated if proposed in one single, abrupt leap. Instead, small
incremental deviations are observed and tolerated, despite the fact that they far
exceed their own rules for the elementary safety (Prielipp et al., 2010).

Operating ships at sea involves the application of operating and safety rules and
procedures. Reason (1997) contends that there are six kinds of rule-related
behaviour (Table 1):

Term Definition
Correct compliance Correct and safe performance achieved through the adherence to
appropriate safety rules.
Correct violation Correct performance achieved by deviating from inappropriate
safety rules.
Correct improvisation A course of action taken in the absence of appropriate procedures
that leads to a safe outcome.
Misvention Behaviour that involves both a deviation from appropriate safety
rules and error(s), leading to an unsafe outcome
Mispliance Behaviour that involves mistaken compliance with inappropriate or
inaccurate operating procedures, leading to an unsafe outcome.
Mistake An unsafe outcome resulting from an unstable plan of action
carried out in the absence of appropriate procedures (a knowledge
based mistake).

Table 1: Six kinds of rule-related behaviour – definition of terms

(Reason, 1997)

These six kinds of rule-based behaviour can be categorised into either correct or
erroneous performance (Table 2).

Good rules Bad rules No rules

Correct Correct
Correct performance Correct improvisation
compliance violation
Erroneous
Misvention Mispliance Mistake
performance

Table 2: Six kinds of rule-related behaviour

(Reason, 1997)

6
Dekker considers that in all situations where technical errors may occur, there is
a responsibility for the junior to always call for advice (Dekker, 2012). However,
it may also be asserted that within the shipping industry, one of the main
pressures not to call for advice is the issue of hierarchy.

Command and hierarchy in the maritime domain

The merchant shipping industry operates with perhaps the most globalised
labour market of any industry and employers utilise labour drawn from a variety
of nations suggesting a truly multi-cultural environment. The shipboard
organisation has also historically been among the most hierarchical to be found
(Bowditch, 2002). While serving the commercial interests of the employing
shipping company, the ship‟s master is the single authority over the crew,
organised hierarchically as a single, centralised system supported by strong
traditions (Perrow, 1999) in which orders are given and expected to be obeyed
down the chain of command without hesitation or question (Bowditch, 2002).
The term „authority‟ is used when legitimising power (Handy, 1990). Within
maritime organisations, a ship‟s master (captain) is qualified to command by the
appropriate certificate of competency and is appointed by the ship owner
(NICWG, 2000). French and Raven (1968) identified that power within
organisations originates from a variety of sources (Table 3):

Type of power Description

Reward Based on the perception that a particular person is able to give rewards,
whether in the form of pay, promotion, recognition or privileges.
Coercive Based on the perception that an individual can punish a group member,
by either withholding benefits or privileges but also, possibly, through
generating fear.
Legitimate Based on the individuals legitimate position within the organisation.

Referent Derived from an individual‟s identification with a particular person

because of personal characteristics or charisma.
Expert Derives from the perception that an individual is an expert in a particular
area and that advice within the area of expertise will be respected
Information Derived from being the only person with access required by others

Table 3: Sources of power within an organisation

(Cushway and Lodge, 1993, p.113)

The master has the responsibility to efficiently execute the voyage and is
provided with the management authority to control resources to ensure the
safety of his passengers, crew, ship and cargo (NICWG, 2000). Command
may be considered to be authority exerted through an amalgamation of
legitimate and expert power. From a historic perspective, ship navigation has
always been characterised by semi-military organisational structures and
decision-making by a single person in command (Schröder-Hinrichs et al., 2012)

7
who, through „experience and overall appreciation‟, is assessed to be the best
person to assess a situation and take the appropriate decisions, especially in an
emergency (NICWG, 2000). Although this historic operational style defines
responsibility clearly, it does not take advantage of the entire knowledge base
held by the bridge team (Bowditch, 2002). Ernest Mach (1905) succinctly states
that:

“Knowledge and error flow from the same mental sources, only success
can tell the one from the other”.
(Mach, 1905, cited in Reason, 1990, p.1)

As such, it is not surprising that many of the worst maritime disasters stem from
incompetent masters and it may be asserted that the social organisation of the
personnel onboard cultivates an error-inducing system in which:

“it is not unusual for a deck officer to remain aghast and silent while his
captain grounds the ship or collides with another’”
(Perrow, 1999, p.178)

A contributory factor in this may be the effect of the application of coercive

power, rather than emphasis on the legitimate and expert factors. Taking the
view that human error is a symptom of deeper problems within a system or
organisation, the Royal Institute of Naval Architects (RINA) consider the
labelling of accidents and near misses as simply being attributable to the failure
of the individual or team of individuals to perform a task desirably (Pyne and
Koester, 2005). Perrow (1999) asserts that the error inducing character of the
maritime industry lies in the social organisation of the personnel on board ships,
in which the behaviour of staff, masters and crews usually flow along the course
of least resistance which is, in turn, determined by their human capacities; their
expertise, the expectations, management style and culture of the company; and
the requirements of the law (Gregory and Shanahan, 2010, p.vi). The authority
gradient is not the only factor that may hinder critical comments. Other factors
are groupthink and the desire for harmony within a group (Schröder-Hinrichs, et
al., 2012). The introduction of automation is one counter to reducing the risk of
human error.

Increased levels of automation

The introduction of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GPS, GLONASS and

GALILEO) have reduced traditional celestial navigation skills using sextants and
manual calculation of position to a formality, bordering upon lip-service,
conducted weekly by ship‟s officers to practice their skills rather than to derive
the ships position and used within the navigation plan. Electronic Chart Display
Information Systems (ECDIS) uses satellite systems and allows the vessel‟s

8
position to be shown (to scale) on electronic navigation charts in real time.
Similarly, systematic radar use to determine the closest point of approach of
vessels has been absorbed within computer driven radar systems (ARPA) and
the practice relegated to professional courses ashore rather than actively
conducted at sea using pencil, plotting sheet and mental arithmetic. In both
cases, automation to determine position and risk of collision assessment is often
considered more reliable than the human determination. However, Sarter and
Woods (1995) posit that automation can create new attentional demands since
the operator has to permanently keep track of the numerous systems, what they
are doing and what they will do next, which mode they are operating in and so
on. This is termed “mode awareness” (Sarter and Woods, 1995) and it may be
hypothesised that increasing cognitive demands on the reduced workforce is
contributing to observed human error influence on accident rates.

Alternatively, it may be considered that operators will monitor less effectively

when automation has been installed and even less effectively if the automation
has been functioning efficiently for a period of time (Lützhöft and Dekker, 2002),
suggesting that increased automation results in some kind of “cognitive
lackadaisicalness” as a result of over reliance on machines. Accordingly,
Lützhöft and Dekker (2002), propose that automation creates new human
weaknesses and amplifies existing ones, being manifested in the level of
situation awareness and level of effective decision-making amongst the ship‟s
bridge team during the execution of the passage plan.

Both perspectives suggest that automation does not necessarily remove human
error, but alters the way it presents itself (Dekker, 2006). Not only is attention
scarce, mental capacity is limited. The mind of the decision maker can only
cope with a limited amount of information, and with a limited number of
alternatives and consequently, even if decision-making is intended to be rational,
Simon (1983), considers that “particular decision domains will, evoke particular
values and great inconsistencies in choice may result from fluctuating attention”
(Simon, 1983, p.18). While over-reliance on technology changes risk perception,
equipment designers consistently fail to realise that there is a significant
difference between work-as-imagined and work-as-done (Schröder-Hinrichs et
al., 2012). It may be asserted that cognitive activity may be fundamentally
affected by the specific use of tools and technologies (Brace and Westcott,
2002). The two key aspects of an object‟s design mediate its impact on our
behaviour through its affordances and usability (Brace and Westcott, 2002).
Furthermore, computer systems suffer quite badly from feature creep (Norman,
1988, cited in Brace and Westcott, 2002, p.320), rapidly introducing increasing
features as a technology has begun to be widely adopted and only reducing
when it is clear what features are used or otherwise (Brace and Westcott, 2002).

9
With increasing automation and the introduction of ECDIS as the primary means
of monitoring navigation there is potentially the risk of „confirmation bias‟,
whereby information is interpreted to test hypotheses that, if true, confirm
already held beliefs rather than entertain hypotheses that would disconfirm
those beliefs. Confirmation bias is generated through the generation and
utilisation of knowledge shields.

Knowledge shields preventing detection of a problem

Problem detection does not always succeed, since there is potential to fit the
situation to what is seen on the chart, for example, and only attending to
information that appears to confirm the mental model of situation awareness and
discounting cues rather than testing it through active cross-checking to seek and
correct error (Flin et al., 2009). Perrow (1984) used the term „de minimus
explanations‟ to describe how individuals explain away inconvenient data and
fail to attend to early cues that something is wrong with the way that they are
understanding events (Hollnagel, 2007, p.24). Hollnagel asserts that knowledge
shields help sustain fixation on an incorrect hypothesis, since individuals rely on
the story/script/map to direct their attention and to interpret and filter signals. De
Keyser and Woods (cited in Hollnagel 2008, p.25) define fixation as „the failure
to revise a mistaken explanation despite the opportunity to do so‟.

The paradox of merchant shipping operations

Keeping a safe navigation watch onboard a modern merchant vessel demands

a high level of competency in many skills and the cognitive demands on
individuals and teams alter commensurately with increasing complexity and
change within the deck officer‟s role (Barnett, 1994). Paradoxically, increasing
technology that focuses on safety and improved situational awareness, using
satellite positioning systems and ECDIS, along with other high-automation tools
such as collision avoidance radar, does not necessarily make for safer operating
environments. Similarly, mariners may be asserted to take risks, attributing
such behaviour to the traditions of the sea (Perrow, 1999, p.174). Given that a
career at sea is no place for an officer averse to risks, there are significant
incidences of risk-taking, not necessarily centred on tradition, but on commercial
pressures. The Hoegh Osaka provides a timely reminder that commercial
pressures and knowledge shields combine to create an error chain. Training
interventions need to be found that can reduce the effects of shortcuts and
confirmation bias in order to counter this paradox.

Training Interventions to counter the paradox

10
It may be asserted that teaching interventions utilising simulation is highly
effective as it fully immerses the student and allows them freedom of decision
making when faced with various scenarios. The UK Merchant Navy Training
Board consider that there are three core training competencies within the
NAEST guidelines (Diagram 1). The area where the circles coincide can be
interpreted as indicating that the individual undergoing the process is able to
utilise all of the bridge equipment to execute a vessels passage plan using set
procedures, while also demonstrating an ability to anticipate events and deal
within unforeseen circumstances expeditiously and effectively.

Since the students are immersed in the learning environment and are required
to be highly participative, it may be considered that simulators are not only
powerful training tools but, if used incorrectly, can also be very destructive to the
learning process through destroying students‟ confidence in their own abilities.
It is therefore the over-riding responsibility of the simulator instructor to facilitate
a constructive learning experience within simulation training. The use of the
experiential learning cycle is a key to this learning process and competence-
based training ensures valid, realistic and lasting behaviour changes.

Equipment training:
Manipulation of equipment
Layout of bridge and
navigation equipment

Procedural training: Conceptual training:

Routine responses for
standard tasks
Order and process for
equipment set-up and
control within set
parameters
Trained emergency
reactions
Dealing with events
outside of normal
parameters
Reacting to new
stimuli
Anticipating events
and being proactive

Diagram 1: Core training competencies

(Adapted from MNTB NAEST guidelines, 2011, p.8)

The experiential learning cycle and the elements of the reflective process

It may be considered that simulation as a learning system is aligned to Kolb‟s

(1975) experiential learning cycle. However, Boud et al (1983) consider that
Kolb (1975) does not pay sufficient attention to the process of reflection, stating
that the model „does not help... to uncover the elements of reflection itself'
(Smith (2001), cited in www.infed.org, 2012). Edgar Schon, an influential writer

11
on reflection, described reflection in two main ways: reflection-in-action and
reflection-on-action.

Reflection-in-action is happening during the event and, in simulation, allows the

student to redesign what he/she is doing while actually engaged in the action
phase. It is usually stimulated by surprise or by events that cause consternation.

Reflection-on-action is looking back after the event and may be defined as the
retrospective contemplation of practice undertaken in order to uncover the
knowledge used in practical situations; through the use of analysis and
interpretation of the information recalled” (Smith (2001, 2010), cited in
www.infed.org, 2012).

Reflection on individual practice is primarily self-reflection, rather than reflection

directed outwards at an on-going situation; it is more difficult to analyse one‟s
own learning experience than to think about an external situation. This is clearly
recognised by Schon when he states: „it is one thing to be able to reflect-in-
action and quite another to reflect on our reflection-in-action so as to produce a
good verbal description of it, and it is still another thing to be able to reflect on
the resulting description‟ (Smith (2001, 2010), cited in www.infed.org, 2012).

It is Schon‟s identification of the difficulty in being able to verbalise the reflection

on reflection-in-action that indicates that the intervention of the simulation
instructor is not only to lead the tutor group, but is to act as a catalyst in the self
and group reflection-on-action processes (Reflection after action). Within
maritime simulation (and indeed, undertaking voyages at sea), a third reflective
action should be considered; that of reflection-before-action. This process
occurs when voyage planning is undertaken before the event with regard to the
intended actions and responses to the likely situations that may develop.

In summary, the following reflective processes are required to maximise the

learning potential of simulation:

 Reflection before action

 Reflection in action
 Reflection after action (self and group)

Applying the opportunities arising from voyage planning and translating them
into maritime simulation, the reflective processes may be interjected as follows
(diagram 2).

Concrete experience
Students conduct ship operations
Reflection in within the simulator. Practical Reflection
action 12 with a view to
experience is gained after action
generating reflective activity
(self)
 Reflection Reflection
before action after action
(self and
group)

Diagram 2: The interjection of the three elements of the reflective process

(Kolb and Fry (1975): Adapted from OU MMP, 2011, p.278)

To ensure that the students maximise their learning potential, it is incumbent

upon the simulator instructor to not only ensure that the scenarios presented are
testing without being detrimental, but to also facilitate the observation and
reflection phase. Lecturers at Warsash Maritime Academy (WMA) currently
observe the decision making processes employed by students on NAEST(O)
and NAEST(M) courses through observation of CCTV and sound recordings.
Debriefs were conducted by replaying the exercise using the overview used to
control the exercise. Using the SHARK mnemonic. The use of the SHARK
mnemonic serves to provide a framework to the questioning methodology for the
group refection-on-action; focusing on different elements of the same
circumstances (Table 4):

S Saw
H Heard
A Action
R Result
K Knowledge

Table 4: The SHARK mnemonic

(source: Barentsen and Malthouse (2009, p.32)

The International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea (IRPCS)

require all vessels to maintain a lookout by sight and by hearing, as well as by
all other available means.

13
 Saw: The simulation is replayed and the students are invited to
described what was observed and experienced (lower-order questioning).
Next the students are invited to describe the individual and collective
actions of their team using radar and position fixing equipment, being as
detailed as possible.

Heard: The student is also invited to describe the decision-making

dialogue between the team members. This „saw and heard‟ process is a
group reflection, guided by the lecturer to ensure a full description of the
scenario and to act as a comparison with the events as they are played
out.

Action: The lecturer will stop the replay of the simulation at appropriate
junctures, inviting the student to describe the actions taken in response
to the developing situation.

Result: Once the intended actions are discussed, the lecturer runs the
simulation on and the effectiveness of the action is observed. This
enables the students to better understand the impact of the execution of
their actions. This may be considered to be the critical phase of the
reflective process. If the actions undertaken were inappropriate or
unsuccessful, there is a risk that the team may apportion blame to each
other. This is exacerbated if formative and summative assessment is
involved.

Knowledge: In addition to the students being questioned, this phase is

opened out to all of the students in the class so that the reasons for the
decisions being made, the actions taken and the effectiveness of the
actions can be assimilated and behaviours challenged and changed in
the context of why and how things happened and the likelihood of the
situation being avoided through different strategies being employed.

However the debriefing methodology assumes that the students can make
decisions based on rational choice.

Rational Choice

Rational choice theory says that operators, managers and other people in
organisations make decisions by systematically and consciously weighing all
possible outcomes along all relevant outcomes (Dekker, 2011). Dekker (2011)
asserts that rational choice has become the benchmark behavioural assumption,
with cognitive psychologists generally sharing the view of absolute rationality.
Hollnagel (2007) considers that this is most clearly expressed in the three

14
assumptions that characterise the rational decision maker, termed „homo
economicus’ (Lee, 1971) (Table 5).

A rational decision maker is completely informed, knowing all of the

Assumption 1 possible alternatives and the outcome of any action that may be taken.

A rational decision maker is infinitely sensitive, thereby being able to notice

even the slightest difference between alternatives and can use this to
Assumption 2 discriminate between them. One consequence of this is that no two
alternatives can be identical.

The decision taker is rational, implying that decision taking can be placed
into a weak ordering and that choices are made to maximise something.
Assumption 3
This in turn requires that there is a common dimension which can either be
single or composite, by which all alternatives can be rated.

Table 5:
The three assumptions that characterise the rational decision maker
(Hollnagel, 2007, p.3)

However, experiments consistently show that people are generally less absolute
in their rationality and that they do not make decisions based on a careful
weighting of preferences and priorities and align those against a neat array of
fully laid-out options. Instead, people continuously make provisional and
incomplete assessments of situations, see whether their original plan is still valid
and go from there (Crowch 2013).

A review of how training and assessment could be enhanced through the

introduction of new technology was conducted. CCTV and sound recordings
were synchronised to the exercises when played back and this has enabled the
lecturer to replay what occurred on the bridge at critical points. It is also used as
a formal record in the event of student dissent with the lecturers‟ assessment of
performance. However, the assessment process remains based upon rational
choice when determining the students‟ level of situation awareness.

Situational awareness

Endsley (1995) presents an SA model with two component parts: a core SA

model and a set of varying factors that affect SA (Rousseau et al., 2004). The
core model comprises the processes directly responsible for SA and is the basis
for much of the current modelling of core SA and is a three level system
(Diagram 3).

15
 Perception of the elements
in the environment

Comprehension of the
current situation

Projection of future status

Diagram 3: Endsley’s (1995) three level Core SA model

The first stage is concerned with attention and perception and is the first step in
achieving SA by providing information about the status of the various elements
in the environment (Rousseau et al., 2004). The interaction with long-term
memory knowledge facilitates the classification of information into understood
representations.

The second stage is a synthesis of disjointed information elements from the first
stage that provides an organised picture of the elements through
comprehension the significance of objects and events in the form of schemata
or mental models (Rousseau et al., 2004).

The third stage is the assimilation of the current situation and estimating the
likely situation that may develop while deciding upon a proactive path of action
that takes into account the future environment (Rousseau et al., 2004). The
visual cues that present themselves at all stages of the model are the focus of
the research question.

In any dynamic situation, individuals are confronted by millions of pixels of

information and, through patterns of saccadic eye movement, the eyes dwell on
objects of interest, while ignoring others (Daw, 2012). The object for the next
fixation obviously has to be selected by observing items in the peripheral part of
the field of view, away from the fovea and therefore requires the whole field of
view to be evaluated in some manner after each saccade (Daw, 2012).
Saccades are ballistic eye movements that once started, cannot generally be
corrected or stopped until finished (Daw 2012). If we tried to analyse every
detail in all parts of the field of view, we would be swamped with information.
The division of the visual system into parts for noticing and parts for inspection
avoids this, increasing the cognitive capacity significantly (Daw, 2012).
Furthermore, the process can be influenced considerably by instructions given
16
to the observer and by the requirements of the task being performed. In this
process, attention determines what is noticed, what is not noticed, and what is
ignored (Daw, 2012). While changes in the periphery are noticed less than
changes that occur in areas under direct observation, there is still the possibility
that changes in the observed area are missed (O‟Regan,et al., 2000). It may be
asserted that individuals explore a scene with an aim in mind and factors that do
not fit in with that aim may be neglected. This can also be considered to be a
contributory factor in the emergence of confirmation bias, impacting upon the
generation of the individual‟s mental model of the developing situation and
attendant situational awareness.

Within the aviation industry, it has been found that confirmation bias is a routine
occurrence during instrument flying. Stimuli produced in the inner ear and deep
muscles of the lower torso are often in conflict with visual cues provided by the
flight instruments. The consequence of this is that the pilot may disregard his
visual sense in favour of the strong sensations of balance and feel, inadvertently
placing his aircraft in an abnormal or hazardous attitude. Similar issues can be
identified across other high-risk industries that use automation to control the
environment.

Such confirmation bias, or simply not being aware of signs and indications may
lead to loss of SA. For example, all nuclear incidents have involved the control
room team being unaware of some important aspect of plant operation that has
contributed to the incident. Evidence cited from nuclear incidents suggests that
this lack of awareness needs to be understood in the operators‟ overall
representation of plant operation, which may lead to incorrect rationalisation
(Patrick and James, 2004).

Gugerty et al. (2004) assert that individual and group differences in performing
transportation tasks are possibly due to many factors, including experience level,
perceptual and cognitive abilities, additional to attitudes towards the task
(Gugerty et al., 2004). For example, research suggests that motor vehicle crash
involvement among older drivers is related to perceptual and cognitive abilities,
such as the ability to divide visual attention over a wide area (Ball et al.,1993).
Gugerty et al. (2004) suggest that the most important predictor tests for future
studies would be visual-spatial tests, including spatially-loaded tests of technical
knowledge.

Measuring SA is controversial. The most frequently used measure of SA

involves probing, via questions, a person‟s recalled knowledge of a situation
(Patrick and James, (2004, p.74) and this is essentially how the debriefing of
simulator-based exercises is conducted. Gawron (2008, p.13) considers that
measurements of human performance can be considered across five sections:

17
 1. General description of the measure;
2. Strengths and limitations or restrictions of the measure, including any
known proprietary rights or restrictions as well as validity and reliability
data;
3. Data collection, reduction and analysis requirements;
4. Thresholds, the critical levels of performance above or below which the
researcher should pay particular attention; and
5. Sources of further information and references.

In order to establish the proportion of time that mariners spend performing each
of their tasks, eye tracking equipment has been procured by Warsash Maritime
Academy.

Eye Tracking and the impact on training and assessment

Eye tracking is an unobtrusive method to gain deeper understanding of cognitive

processes, such as problem solving and decision making. By measuring eye
movements, lecturers can get further insight into the on-going mental processes
during tasks and in particular, eye tracking is can be used to study:

 Attention
 Memory
 Language
 Problem solving
 Decision making

The author is about to conduct an ethnographic action research inquiry (ARI) of

officers undertaking Bridge Team Management and NAEST courses at Warsash
Maritime Academy, using simulation to provide valid enactment of realistic
shipping situations and incorporating eye-tracking technology. Rothkopf et al.
(2007) used a virtual environment to consider the various roles of task and
salience on fixation selection and found strong effects on task in terms of not
only what objects were looked at, but also on the locations within objects that
are fixated (Tatler, 2009).

The ARI aims to assess not only the amount of time that the watchkeeping
officers looked out of the windows, but also identify what they are looking at.
Additionally, it would examine what parts of the Electronic Chart Data
Information System (ECDIS) are concentrated upon, providing visual-spatial
data in an environment requiring technical knowledge as suggested by Gugerty
et al. (1993).

18
Additionally, quantitative and qualitative data is to be mined from mariners
engaged in various types of operation (gas, oil, containers, bulk cargo). The
author has engaged in discussions with two major shipping companies and the
Royal Navy‟s sea training organisation with respect to the potential use of eye-
tracking equipment at sea. Tentative approval, subject to the provision of further
details being supplied has been received by all three organisations.

By drilling down into the specific areas occupying visual attention to the extent of
fixation times, information being looked at and linking it to the verbalised
decision making processes, it is anticipated that the cognitive process can be
better understood by both student and staff.

Summary

The paradox of merchant shipping operations remains. Despite increasing

levels of technology and automation, accidents continue to occur. The „damning
indictment‟ of the shipping industry is that, despite increasing regulation and the
prevalence of criminal charges being brought to bear against mariners, the
tendency to shortcuts through either misvention, mispliance or mistake remains.
When accidents occur, the investigators have a degree of hindsight bias and
assume that the perpetrator has the ability to make insightful decisions based on
perfect knowledge. This belief in rational decision making is also prevalent
when training and assessing students undertaking simulation based exercises.
By seeing beyond this assumption it is necessary to examine the cognitive
processes of students in order to gain insight into what decisions are taken and
when they are taken. It is believed that the use of eye-tracking equipment, in
conjunction with the exercise replay, CCTV and sound recordings can provide
significant information into how the officer is using visual data to make decisions.
It is also believed that by identifying what students and officers‟ are looking at, in
order to gain and maintain situation awareness, cognitive based training can be
refined and delivered in order to produce a safer operator. It is hoped that the
research about to be undertaken can provide validity to this aim.

19
Bibliography:

Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality (2012), Safety and Shipping 1912-2012: From
Titanic to Costa Concordia, Munich, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG. p.28

Barentsen, J., R., and Malthouse, R., (2009), Reflective Practice in the Lifelong
Learning Sector (Achieving QTLS), Exeter, Learning Matters Ltd. p.32

Barnett, M. L., (1994), The Effectiveness and Practical Application of Simulators as

Tools for Training and Examining Seafarers. Southampton, Southampton Institute.

Boeing Product Safety Organisation (1993), Statistical summary of commercial jet

aircraft safety incidents: Worldwide Operations, 1959-1992, Seatlle, WA, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes.

Boud, D,, Keogh, R., and Walker, D., (1985) 'Reflection: Turning Experience in to
Learning', London: Kogan Page

Crowch, T., (2013), Navigating the Human Element, Gravesend, MLB Publishing. Pp.
19-21

Cushway, B., and Lodge, D., Organizational Behaviour and Design (Fast Track MBA)
Philadelphia, Kogan Page Ltd

Daniels, S., (2012), The Criminalisation of the Ship’s Master: A new approach for the
new Millennium. [viewed 2 June 2016]. Available from:
http://core.ac.uk/download/files/104/9832763.pdf

Dekker, S., (2006), The Field Guide To Understanding Human Error, Farnham, Ashgate
Publishing Ltd. p.15

Dekker, S., (2012), Just Culture. Balancing Safety and Accountability, Aldershot,
Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Flin, R., O‟Connor, P., and Crichton, M., (2008), Safety At The Sharp End, A Guide to
Non-Technical Skills, Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Gawron, V. J., (2008), Human Performance, Workload, and Situational Awareness

Measures Handbook, Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press. P.13

Graveson, A., (2016) cited in Heogh Osaka report a damning indictment, says Nautilus
International, [viewed 2 June 2016]. Available from:
https://www.nautilusint.org/en/whatwesay/nautilus-news/hoegh-osaka-report-a-
damning-indictment,-says-nautilus-international

20
Gugerty, L., Brooks, J. O., and Treadaway, C. A., (2004), Individual Differences in
Situation Awareness for Transportation Tasks, in Banbury, S., and Tremblay, S., (eds),
(2004), A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application,
Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Handy, C., (1990), inside Organizations – 21 Ideas for managers, London, BBC Books.

Hollnagel, E., (1993), Human Reliability analysis: Context and Control. London,
Academic Press.

Hollnagel, E., (2008), „Decisions about „what‟ and decisions about „how‟‟ in Cook, M.,
Noyes, J and Masakowski, Y, (2007), Decision Making in Complex Environments,
Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. p.24

Lützhfhöft M. H., and Dekker S. W. A., On your Watch: Automation on the Bridge,
Journal of Navigation, 55(1). [Viewed 5 June 2016]. ]. Available from: http//www.he-
alert.org/filemanager/root/site_assets/standalone_articles_not_linked_to_a_bulletin/HE
00050.pdf

Open University Business School (2011), Managing and Managing People, Milton
Keynes, The Open University. Pp. 278.

Patrick, J., and James, N., (2004), A Task-orientated Perspective of Situation

Awareness, in , in Banbury, S., and Tremblay, S., (eds), (2004), A Cognitive Approach
to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application, Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Pyne, R., and Koester, T., (2005) The Methods and Means for Analysis of Crew
Communication in the Maritime Domain, The Archives of Transport Vol XVII, No 3-4,
2005 [viewed 31 May 2016]. Available from: http//www.he-
alert.org/filemanager/root/site_assets/standalone_article_pdfs-0605-/HE00640.pdf

Sarter, N. B., and Woods, D. D., (1995), How in the world did we ever get into that
mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5−19.

Smith, M., K., (2001), David A. Kolb on experiential learning, Available from:
www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm. [Viewed 17 February 2012]

Tatler, B. W., (2009), Eye guidance in natural scenes, A special issue of the journal
Visual Cognition, Hove, Psychology Press.

Woods, D., Dekker, S., Cook, R., Johannesen, L., Sarter, N., (2010) Behind Human
Error 2nd Edition, Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Pp. xv

21
 Application of Virtual Reality Technology on Yacht Simulator
YIN Yong1, WU Wei2, SHEN Helong1, SUN Xiaofeng1, ZHANG Dongyang1

(1.Key Lab. of Marine Simulation and Control, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China)
(2.State Key Lab. of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, BeiHang University, Beijing,
China )

Abstract：Virtual Reality (VR) is developing rapidly in recent years. Yacht training using yacht
simulator is becoming more and more widespread in China now. The paper will introduce one
kind of yacht simulator using VR headset developed by Dalian Maritime University recently.
Some key technologies used in the simulator such as 6DOF yacht mathematical model when
moving toward regular wave, visual system with motion platform and VR display device,
interactive technology etc. in details. The visual system using VR device and motion platform is
different from normal simulator without motion platform. Model of heave and pitch motion of
yacht will be focused in the paper. The simulation results shows that the error of the model
compared with real yacht model is less than 15%. The model can be used in the yacht simulator
for training.

1. Introduction

As one of the most popular relaxation, yacht industry is developing quickly in China
during recent years [1]. The yachtsmen number is increasing rapidly with the yacht
quantity. Training necessities on yacht have increased during the last few years which
is mainly depends on real training ship near the shore. This training way is influenced
greatly by season, weather, high cost and low safety. As one of the internationally
approved training way, simulator is playing a more and more important role. By
simulator, the yacht training can be done at any required time with lower cost, lower
risk and higher quality. The Yacht simulator could be considered as a marine simulator
and have some distinctive characteristics. Moreover, some institutions enforce strict
standards for the provided simulators realism in order to substitute real training by
simulated sessions [2]. In this paper, a kind of yacht simulator using VR headset
developed by Dalian Maritime University (DMU) is introduced. Besides visual
system, interactive technology, yacht motion mathematical model, which is one of the
most important key technologies and a significant part of DNV Performance standard
for a ship simulator, will be introduced primarily in this paper.

2. Yacht motion mathematical model

This paper established six degrees of freedom yacht motion mathematical model. First,
establish a six degrees of freedom motion mathematical equation of yacht, according
to the separate model of MMG, calculate hydrodynamic force acting on the hull and
propeller and rudder respectively, and bring the data into the ship motion equation,
use the fourth order Runge-Kutta method to solve ship motion equation to get the ship
motion parameters. Secondly, make a simulation program, in which the mathematical
model of the yacht is solved, and then output the results of simulation. Finally, take a
model yacht as the example, carry out ship model test using planar motion device
(PMM) in dragging pool to get hydrodynamic coefficients, then carry out straight
sailing test and cycle sailing test in the pool. Using the simulation program simulates
the yacht motion, and compare simulation data such as the turning circle, speed and so
on with the model test data, analyze comparing result, the simulation precision which
is obtained can validate the correctness of the model.

2.1 Motion mathematic model

In maneuvering, a yacht experiences motion in 6 degrees of freedom (DOFs), which

are surge, sway and yaw, roll, pitch, yaw. The yacht mathematical motion model is
divided into two part: Horizontal plane models (surge, sway and yaw) and heave, roll,
pitch models. The horizontal plane models are built based on modular models, which
is proposed by Mathematical Maneuvering model Group. The heave, roll, pitch
models in regular waves is based on the strip theory[3-5] and seakeeping theory[6].

2.1.1 Horizontal models

Fig 2.1 The coordinate system of the yacht plane motion

It needs to build two coordinate systems for the yacht kinematics model, which are
usually north-east and body-fixed coordinate system, which is shown in Fig. 2.1. OXY
is the earth-fixed frame and oxy is the body-fixed frame. The North-East-Down (NED)
coordinate system with origin O on is defined relative to the Earth’s reference
ellipsoid. The body-fixed reference frame with origin o is a moving coordinate frame
that is fixed to the yacht. Then a horizontal motion model can be built as follows:
  x  u cos  sin
 y   cos  u cos

  r
 (1)
m(u  r  xG r )  X H  X P  X R
m(  ru  xG r)  YH  YP  YR

 I zz r  mxG (  ru )  N H  N P  N R

Where {x, y, ψ} represents the positions(x,y) and the yaw angle ψ of yacht in the
earth-fixed frame, {u, v, r} represents the surge, sway and yaw velocities of the yacht
in the body-fixed frame. The subscript index H, R and P of symbols X, Y, N represent
the surge force, sway force and yaw moment of hull, rudders and propellers
respectively.

The forces and moments of yacht hull include inertia force and viscous force. The
inertia force is obtained by the regression formula of Zhou Zhaoming[7]:

mx 1 d L d 
 [0.398  11.97Cb (1  3.73 )  2.89Cb (1  1.13 ) 
m 100 B B B 
L d Ld 
0.175Cb ( ) 2 (1  0.514 )  1.107 ] 
B B BB

my d L 
 0.882  0.54Cb (1  1.6 )  0.156 (1  0.673Cb )  (2)
m B B 
d L d d L d 
0.826 (1  0.678 )  0.638 (1  0.669 )] 
BB B BB B 
J ZZ / m 1 L 
 [33  76.85Cb (1  0.784Cb )  3.43 (1  0.63Cb )]
L 100 B 

And the viscous force is presented as follows[8]:

 X V  X vv vv  X rr rr  X uu uu

YV  Yv v  (Yr  m)r  Yvvv v  Yvvr v r  Yvrr vr  Yrrr r
3 2 2 3
(3)

 NV  N v v  N r r  N vvv v  N vvr v r  N vrr v r  N rrr r
3 2 2 3

The forces and moment of propellers[9] can be calculated by

 X P  (1  t P )  KT DP 4 n 2

YP  0 (4)
N  0
 P

Where tp represents the thrust deduction factor, n is the rounds of per second, Dp is the
diameter of propeller, KT means the thrust ratio.

The force and moment of rudder[9]is expressed:

  X R  (1  t R ) FN sin 

YR  (1  aH ) FN cos  (5)
 N  ( x  a x ) F cos 
 R R H H N

Where δ is rudder angle, is the position of the rudder, represents the

resistance reduction ratio of rudder； represents the correction factor of hull sway
force increment. represents the action point of hull sway force increment； is
rudder positive pressure, which can be expressed as:

1
FN   AR f aU R2 sin  R (6)
2

Where AR is the area of rudder, is the slope of rudder lift coefficient.

2.1.2 Heave, roll and pitch model in regular wave

Heave, pitch motion can affect the lift force and buoyant force, then the motion model
of yacht in regular wave is:

z  F0   L   B
 m0 
 
 J   M 0   M L   M B (7)
 M ()  M ( )  M ( )  M
 z h w

[3-5]
According to the strip theory and sea keeping theory[6], the above equation can be
obtained as:



 m0  Azz  z   Bzz     z  Czz z  Az    Bz  gp       C z  L  B  
L B x (L  B )
  V   V 
   F  F  cos  t   F  F  sin  t
 zc cL e zs sL e

  x ( M  M )
( J   A )   B      C  ( M L  M B )    A z z 
gp L B

  V 
 ( M L  M B ) 
 B z   z  C z z (8)
 V 
   M  c  M cL  cos e t   M  s  M sL  sin e t

  B cos       
  4 cos   Z g sin   LHR  
 J   J     2 N     cos  0
  B cos       
  Z g sin   LHL
 
 4 cos   

  hX   0 sin  sin e t
2.2 Model simulation and results

2.2.1 Yacht ship particular and hydrodynamic coefficients

The ship particular of experiment yacht is showed in Tab.2.1. The model yacht is
made under scale factor 1:10.

Tab. 2.1 Yacht and yacht model principal dimensions

Experiment yacht Model yacht

Length overall L(m) 22.00 2.200
displacement D(t) 55.16 0.551
ship beam B(m) 4.906 0.4906
draft d(m) 1.243 0.124
block coefficient Cb 0.435 0.435

Hydrodynamic force is confirmed as followed: X uu  is measured by resistance test [10] .

The hydrodynamic derivatives such as X'vv , X' rr , Y'vvv , Y'rrr , Y'v , Y'r , N'vvv ,
N'rrr , N'v and N'r is measured by PMM[11]. Longitudinal additional mass derivative
X'u can be obtained by Motoras map[12]. Interaction coefficients between hull-
rudder-propeller is got by the strip theory. Some yacht hull hydrodynamic coefficients
is showed by Tab.2.2.

Tab.2.2 Yacht hull hydrodynamic coefficients

Coefficients Value
X 'uu -0.0034
X 'u  m ' -0.014
X 'vv 0.0086
Y 'v  m ' -0.0140
Y 'r -0.2329
Y 'v -0.0408

The propeller and rudder parameters used in the experiment is showed in Tab.2.3.

Tab.2.3 Yacht relevant parameters

Parameters Value
pitch ratio P/D 1.2
blade number，Z 4

diameter，D(m) 0.9

propeller speed（rps） 18
rudder area A(m2) 0.714
2.2.2 Mathematic model solution

In this paper, forth-order Runge-Kutta is used to solve the mathematic motion

function and got the motion parameters.

For the function followed:

y  f ( x0 , y0 , y1 , yn ) (9)

If x=x0, the initial value of y0,y1……yn is set, and the time step is h，when x=x0+h, the
value can be calculated by the forth-order Runge-Kutta in function(10)：

 h
 yn 1  yn  6  K1  2 K 2  2 K 3  K 4 

 K1  f ( xn , yn )
 h h
 K 2  f ( xn  , yn  K1 ) (10)
 2 2
 h h
 K 3  f ( xn  2 , yn  2 K 2 )

 K 4  f ( xn  h, yn  hK 3 )

The flow chart of simulation program is showed as Fig. 2.2.

 Begin
Simulation

Input yacht
parameters Wave start
and speed

hydrodynamic coefficients
Propeller Yacht hull calculation
Rudder force
force hydrodynamic

Yacht motion
function
Heave, roll and
pitch model
Fourth-Order Runge- solution
Kutta mothod to solve
the function

Numerical solution
Save ship
by Forth-order
parameters
Runge-Kutta

end

Fig.2.2 The flow diagram of simulation program

2.2.3 Simulation Test

The result of Yacht model test is showed as Fig. 2.3. And the simulation test in this
paper is showed as Fig.2.4, 2.5.
Fig.2.3 The result of yacht model test in basin（Rudder angleδ=35°,
rotational velocity of propeller n=18rps）

Fig.2.4 The result of yacht model direct sailing of the simulation

experiment using the motion model in this paper
 Fig.2.5 The result of yacht model turning simulation experiment
using the motion model in this paper

The comparison between simulation test and yacht model test in basin is showed as
Tab.2.4. The relative error is small enough to fullfill the IMO requirement for ship
motion of marine simulator. The comparison of speed is not made because of lack of
data source.

Tab.2.4 Comparison between the result of simulation experiment

and the result of yacht model test in basin

Mdel Test Silated value Relative error Original Relative error to

value in this paper simulated(%) model test original model
Direct sailing
forward speed(kn) 15.0 15.30 2.0 9.3 -38.0
Turing simulation
tactical diameter(m) 342.50 347.18 1.4 239.78 -30.0
forward speed (kn) -- 10.99 -- 5.46
Traverse speed(kn) -- -1.72 -- -1.10
Turning speed(m/s) -- 0.032 -- 0.023

3. Visual System

3.1 VR headset with 3DOF motion seat

The display quality of the visual system, which can improve the depth cue &
immersion effect of the simulator greatly, has been the key point in the development
of ship simulator. In order to get better immersion effect, the VR headset is used in the
yacht simulator. One of the first commercially available headsets was the Forte VFX1,
which was announced at CES in 1994[13]. The VFX-1 had stereoscopic displays,
3-axis head-tracking and stereo headphones. Another pioneer in this field was Sony
who released the Glasstron in 1997[14], which had an optional positional sensor which
permitted the user to view the surroundings, with the perspective moving as the head
moved, providing a deep sense of immersion.

However, these early headsets were unsuccessful in the marketplace due to primitive
technology, described by John Carmack as "looking through toilet paper tubes"[15]. A
new era in VR headsets started around 2012[16], when the plans for Oculus Rift were
announced with a Kickstarter campaign, attracting industry attention from several
prominent video game developers. Since then, multiple development kits and
prototypes were released, with the final product is released on March 2016. In March
2014, Sony demonstrated a prototype headset for PlayStation 4, which was later
named PlayStation VR [17, 18]. In 2014, Valve Corporation demonstrated some headset
prototypes, which later turned into a partnership with HTC to produce the HTC Vive
headset [19, 20]. The Vive has a release in April 2016.

In this paper, Oculus Rift Dk2 is chosen for the visual system. The headset can
provide an immersive virtual reality experience. It consists of a stereoscopic
head-mounted display (providing separate images for each eye) and head motion
tracking sensors [20]. Its high refresh rate and low-persistence display work together
with its custom optics system to provide incredible visual fidelity and an immersive,
wide field of view. The Oculus Rift comes with the headset, the depth-tracking device
that rests on your desk, and the Oculus Remote. The Remote is purely a swiping
device like a standard remote, so do not expect any motion tracking to be included in
the initial product. But in Oculus Rift Dk2 series, Oculus Remote is not included.

Besides VR headset, a single person 3DOF motion platform is used in the system. The
motion seat can support 3DOF input including pitch, roll and heave from motion
mathematic model. Because those movements are the most important for space
simulation anyway, and the other 3 degrees of freedom in a 6DOF are for added
immersion but not completely necessary. Fig. 3.1 shows the platform and Oculus Rift
Dk2.

Fig. 3.1 VR headset and 3DOF motion seat

3.2 System performance

A HP Z620 workstation is used to generate the high quality visual scene. The
configuration is updated to 8G RAM and a NVIDIA GTX 980 graphic card is used.
The visual scene engine is Unity 3D. When a yacht sailing in Sydney freely, after the
system is running normally, the frame rate is up to 75-80 fps and get a smooth view
effect and very cool 3D stereo immersion. The total triangle faces is up to 3-5 million
due to the different scene content at different time. In order to optimize performance,
a scene combination method is used. Combines several meshes into one mesh which
using the same material or texture. Fig. 3.2 shows some scene screenshots.

Fig. 3.2 Screen shots of visual scene

4 Conclusion

In this paper, a kind of yacht simulator from DMU using VR headset is introduced.
The 6DOF yacht motion mathematic model is used to generate realistic ship
movement attitudes, three of which including yaw, pitch and roll, is output to the
3DOF motion seat. Testing results show that the mathematical model has a relative
low error compared to the real yacht model testing data. After rendering the whole
scene and model in a PC with GTX 980 graphics card, a smooth and cool 3D stereo
visual scene effect can be seen through the Oculus Rift. For next step, the 6DOF
platform maybe test and get a more realistic immersion.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the National High
Technology Research and Development Program of China ("863"Program) [NO.
2015AA016404] and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
[No. 3132016310].

[Reference]

[1] CUI Yuanyuan, ZHANG Jing, “Yacht industry research review in China and aboard”. World
Shipping, 2011, 12, 43(1):10-11.
[2] VERITAS D N. “Standard for Certification No.2.14 Maritime Simulator Systems”. Danmark,
2011.
[3] Sandage A, Tammann G A. The Double Cepheid CE Cassiopeiae in NGC 7790: Tests of the
Theory of the Instability Strip and the Calibration of the Period-Luminosity Relation[J].
Astrophysical Journal, 1969, 157(2P1):págs. 82-102.
[4] Salvesen N, Tuck E O, Faltinsen O W. Ship Motions and Sea Loads[J]. Transactions-Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1971, 78.
[5] Nayfeh A H, Mook D T, Marshall L R. Nonlinear Coupling of Pitch and Roll Modes in Ship
Motions[J]. Journal of Hydronautics, 1973, 7(7): 145-152.
[6] Du S X, Hudson D A, Price W G, et al. The occurrence of irregular frequencies in forward
speed ship seakeeping numerical calculations[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2011, 38(1):235-247.
[7] Zhou Zhaoming, Sheng Ziyan, Feng Wushi. Manoeuvrability prediction for multipurpose
ship[J]. Ship Engineering, 1983(6).
[8] Muhammad A H, Maimun A, Yaakob O, etal. Effect of Spray-Strake on Patrol Vessel
Manoeuvrability[C]// ASME 2008 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2008:445-453.
[9] Jia Xinle, Yang Yansheng, Ship Motion Mathematic Model[M]. Dalian, Publisher of Dalian
Maritime University,1999.
[10] Shen Hongcui He Moqin Zhou Yi. Uncertainty Analysis of Resistance Test[J]. Journal of Ship
Mechanics, 1999.
[11] Sung Y J, Lee T I, Yum D J. An analysis of the PMM tests using a system identification
method [C]//Proceedings of the 7th International Marine Design Conference. 2000: 1-10.
[12] Motora S. ON THE MEASUREMENT OF ADDED MASS AND ADDED MOMENTS OF
INERTIA FOR SHIP MOTIONS (1),(2),(3)[J]. Journal of the society of naval architects of
Japan, 1959, 105(Vols. 105, 106).
[13] Nathan Cochrane. "VFX-1 VIRTUAL REALITY HELMET by Forte". Game Bytes
Magazine, 1994.
[14] Swarnkar N, Chug I S, Bagwan F, et al. “VR4DT-Virtual Reality for Driving Test”.
International Journal of Engineering Science, 2016, 3185-3188.
[15] Charles Onyett. "The Future of Gaming in Virtual Reality". IGN, 2012,
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/04/the-future-of-gaming-in-virtual-reality.
[16] Greg Kumparak. "A Brief History Of Oculus". TechCrunch, 2014,
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/26/a-brief-history-of-oculus/.
[17] Michael McWhertor. "Sony announces Project Morpheus, a virtual reality headset coming to
PlayStation 4". Polygon, 2014,
 http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/18/5524058/playstation-vr-ps4-virtual-reality.
[18] Aaron Souppouris. "Sony's Project Morpheus is now 'PlayStation VR'". Engadget, 2015,
https://www.engadget.com/2015/09/15/project-morpheus-is-now-playstation-vr/.
[19] Tom Warren. "Valve's VR headset revealed with Oculus-like features". The Verge, 2014,
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/3/5775220/valve-vr-headset-pictures-concept-features.
[20] Dante D'Orazio, Vlad Savov. "Valve's VR headset is called the Vive and it's made by HTC".
The Verge, 2015, http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/1/8127445/htc-vive-valve-vr-headset.
[21] https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/
Corresponding Author’s Biography :
Prof. YIN Yong was born in 1969. He received his B.S. and
M.S. degree in Navigation Technology from Dalian Maritime
University in 1991 and 1994 respectively. In 2001, he gained Ph.D
in Transportation Information Engineering and Control from Dalian
Maritime University. His research interests include navigation
simulation technology, virtual reality and computer graphics in
real-time. His doctoral thesis supervisor was Prof. Yi-cheng JIN.
Since 2004, Prof. YIN has been professor of Transportation Information
Engineering & Control at the Key Lab. of Marine Simulation & Control of
Communication Ministry, China (located on Dalian Maritime University). Up until
now he has been an advisor for 5 doctoral and 14 postgraduate candidates. Since 2003,
he has been a member of Chinese Navigation Society, System Simulation Society,
Image and Graphics Society. In 2008, he was accepted as a committeeman of
Virtual Reality Committee of Chinese Computer Society, Chinese Image and
Graphics Society. Now he is the director of Nautical Science and Technology
Insititute, Dalian Maritime University. By now, he has written more than 70 papers
about navigation simulation, application of virtual reality and computer graphics for
scientific journals, as well as for national and international conferences.

Prof. YIN Yong

Email: bushyin@163.com Tel: +86-411-84723925, +86-13052794501
Address: Key Lab. of Marine Simulation and Control, Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian, China
Other Author’s email:
Prof. WU Wei: wuwei@buaa.edu.cn

SHEN Helong: shenhelong@126.com

How do experienced mariners perceive vessel risk in constricted
navigation ?

J. Hartler1, S.N. MacKinnon1,2,*, F. Olindersson1, L. Gustavsson

Christiernin3
1
Chalmers University of Technology, SWEDEN
2
Memorial University, CANADA
3
University West, SWEDEN
*
Corresponding Author: scottm@chalmers.se

Abstract

Safe navigation practices should be highly associated to training (e.g. STCW),

vocational experience and competent use of fit-for-purpose navigational equipment.
All of these elements are highly regulated and near standardized, yet near misses
and collisions remain common occurrences. While adhering to the “rules of the road”
reflects a practice aimed at safe navigation, perhaps the paradigms of “social
navigation”, “pattern recognition” or “principles of naturalistic decision making” are
better frameworks to understand the conflicts between goals and outcomes.

Ten participants volunteered to participate in this study. Three scenarios (presented

in a randomized order) were undertaken employing a full mission bridge simulator.
Each scenario was designed using a standardized traffic density, but had varying
bathymetric and/or geographic challenges. The participant was provided with both
automatic radar plotting aid (ARPA) and an outside visual representation of the traffic
situation. Outside visibility was set to 1-1.5 miles, thus the navigational focus was
likely based on the ARPA rather than outside visual verification.

The participant was instructed to monitor traffic situations and was permitted to make
course and/or speed alterations to OWN ship in order to maintain a safe traffic
separation. Following each scenario (approximately 10-15 minutes in duration), the
participant was asked to rank radar-identified targets in order of perceived
navigational threat to OWN ship. The debriefing questions were designed to
understand both participant situation awareness and decision-making related to the
importance of CPA/TCPA or collision regulations.

Statistical analyses indicated general agreement on the four highest threats,

however, there was a significant difference between threats 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. In
general, participants not only applied COLREGS rules in making their choices, but
tried to apply (pattern recognition) while monitoring the scenario prior to the freeze.
Thus rule-based decision-making processes couldn’t solely describe the attribution
of risk.
Introduction

To avoid collisions at sea, all vessels should follow the rules in the Convention on
the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). The rules
are divided into five parts; General, Steering and sailing rules, Lights and shapes,
Sound and light signals and Exemptions (IMO, 1972).

The main purpose of these rules are to facilitate in making decisions about which
vessel is the give-way vessel in different navigational situations. In most situations,
one of the vessels is clearly the give-way vessel and the other vessel is the stand-on
vessel. In head-on situations or in restricted visibility conditions, both vessels are to
give-way and neither has the right of way.

The rules states that all vessels shall determine if a risk of collision exists (rule 7a)
and, if the circumstances of the case warrant, avoid collision by executing a positive
avoiding manoeuver, “made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of
good seamanship” (rule 8a).

Normally, avoiding manoeuvers are performed by changing course to starboard. In

case of multiple simultaneous situations with risk of collision, no priority order or risk
assessment method is provided within the COLREGS. Usually, watchkeeping
officers use the distance and time to closest point of approach (CPA and TCPA) to
determine the actual risk of collision in each traffic situation. In dense traffic areas, a
higher risk (closer CPA) is normally considered.

However, collisions and near misses often occur. Is this due to improper application
of the COLREGS rules or perhaps rules dictating how two vessels must behave
cannot be robustly (and safely) applied in more complex traffic situations (i.e.
multiple vessels, restricted waters, defined traffic separation schemes)? Rules must
be applied within specified contexts, is influenced by a watchkeeper’s training and
experience with situations similar to the current navigation challenges. The officer on
watch’s ability to recognize traffic patterns and the intentions of other vessel are
crucial to choosing and executing the correct maneuvers in order to accommodate
the current. The purpose of this study was to examine how experienced
watchkeepers estimate the relative risk of vessels interacting within complicated
traffic schemes.

Methods
Ten participants volunteered to participate in this study. Five participants were active
Swedish Coast Guard Officers (mean years of service at sea 12.8 (range of 3-30))
and five participants were maritime studies lecturers from Chalmers University
(mean years of service at sea 7.4 (range of 1-14)). For statistical analyses purposes,
this was treated as one group. Both groups had comparable master mariner
qualifications. The Swedish Coast Guard have their own licensing processes and
can be considered as Master or Chief Officer (unlimited) licenses. Participants from
Chalmers all had previous time onboard as junior and senior officers and would be
considered to have unlimited licenses as Officer of the Watch to Chief Officer.

The study was conducted in Kongsberg Polaris simulator bridges with 120-degree
visual field of view according to DNV simulator B standard at the Department of
Shipping and Marine Technology at Chalmers University. The runs were video
recorded and captured conversations between the participant and an “actor” co-pilot.
Prior to the start of data collection, participants were provided time to familiarize
themselves with the ARPA technology. The scenarios were described (in text format)
to the participants prior to the start of data collection. For each scenario, Own Ship
is named the Tor Lily and is a Roll On-Roll Off vessel. In all experimental conditions,
participants acted as the Chief Mate. The vessel had the following specifications:
Length: 199.8m; Beam: 26.5m; Current Draught: 6.95m; Maximum speed: 22.7 knots
and Service speed: (50%) 16-18knots. At the beginning of each scenario, the
autopilot was set and at 50% speed.

Three navigation scenarios were presented in random order to the participants.

During each scenario, the participant was asked to verbally express their thoughts,
intentions and decision-making processes to the second officer (actor). The
participant had 5 minutes to obtain an understanding of the situation before
assuming command of the vessel (handover). Throughout each scenario the
participant was free to use any ARPA radar functions. Each scenario lasted
approximately 15-minutes after the participant undertook navigational control.

At the termination of each trial, an ARPA image of the traffic situation was presented
to the participant. Own ship was clearly marked with a large circle and target vectors
are all set to 3min. The participant was asked to rank (in order of high to low), the
four targets thought to be of highest safety risk. These were data were converted into
an ordinal scale where highest risk was scored 4 points and the fourth highest risk
scored 1 point. Following this, an open-ended interview was conducted with each
participant.

Scenario 1 (Open Sea)

You are underway to Gothenburg, Sweden. You pass through an area of open sea
with heavy traffic. In this heavy traffic situation you are expected to maintain a CPA
of 0.5 M and not make an evasive action before a distance of 1.5M to another vessel.
In other words, act in accordance with international collision regulations. The whole
scenario takes then approximately 15 minutes to complete. A service speed 16-18
knots is recommended during the run, but you are able to change this speed.
Autopilot is recommended to turn rate 0.3M and manual control is possible during
the scenario if you must make use of it.

Scenario 2 (Calais Approach)

In this scenario, you will pass through the Dover Strait with heavy traffic carrying
trailers and road to Calais. In heavy traffic you are expected to have a CPA of at
least 0.3M and not make evasive action until a distance of 1.5M to another vessel. In
other words, act in accordance with international collision regulations. The whole
scenario takes then approximately 15mins to complete. A service speed of 16-18
knots is recommended during the run, but the participant was free to alter the vessel
speed. Autopilot was recommended to a turn rate 0.3M and manual control was
possible during the scenario. As part of the protocol, a Navtex warning was issued:
Diving operation in place with dredge vessel close to the proximity of divers under
water. Stay well clear of the area.
Scenario 3 (Traffic Separation Scheme)

The third scenario is a traditional ongoing repetitive Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS)
scenario located near the port Valdez in Alaska. With a TSS there is a pre-decided
pattern of movement that vessels in the area should follow. Basically it means there
is a virtual roads marked by a maritime administration in the navigational. In the
scenario there is heavy traffic with small CPA passage if overtaking vessels. There
are fishing and safety vessels in the zone between the traffic lanes which is typical
for this area. Traffic on the opposite course follows its lane (with exceptions of some
which are following TSS rules). COLREGS Rule 10 should be used to decide how to
act in this TSS, but does not take away responsible under any other rule in
COLREGS

Results and Discussion

For the purposes of this section, each scenario will be discussed independently.

Scenario 1 (Open Seas)

Figure 1 represents the complete ARPA data at time of termination of Scenario 1 (i.e.
all vessels are represented but may not be what the participant had selected at that
time). Figure 2 is the aggregate data for assessed risk in Scenario 1.

In Scenario 1 there is no specific traffic pattern so the officer needs to determine risk
of collision in each and every traffic situation. The three “stationary” groups of
vessels restrict the opportunities for changing course, especially the fishing vessels
on the starboard bow (17-20). Two vessels are crossing from starboard to port (16 &
30), the first with a CPA of 0.95 nm and the second with a CPA of 0.81 nm. At the
same time, there are vessels crossing from port to starboard (12, 14, 15 & 23), were
12 is the most “dangerous” target with an initial CPA of 0.21 nm. According to the
COLREGS, 12 is give-way vessel and, in the scenario, changes course to starboard
at a TCPA of more than 5 minutes. At scenario termination, at least five vessels
should at least be under close observation by the officer of the watch:
 1. Vessel 38, in a head-on situation with a CPA of 0.19 nm and TCPA of 8
minutes. Both vessels should give-way by changing course to starboard.
2. Vessel 29, in a crossing situation, located on the starboard bow. Own ship is
give-way vessel if risk of collision. The initial CPA is 0.96 nm, a low risk target
under these circumstances, but with a “stationary” group ahead the other
vessel is forced to change course to port or starboard. If 29 changes course to
starboard, the situation becomes more difficult.
3. Vessel 37, a cruise ship not making speed through water, heading north. Own
ship is give-way vessel due to overtaking or if the other vessel is not under
command. CPA is 0.21 nm and TCPA 10 minutes.
4. Vessel 30, in a crossing situation, located ahead and crossing own ships bow
in a few seconds. The risk of collision is not high, but the vessel still needs
some attention.
5. Vessel 16, in a crossing situation, located on own ship’s port bow and already
crossed own ship’s bow. The risk of collision is low, but the distance between
the vessels are still small and the situation needs some attention.

Figure 1: ARPA representation at time of termination of Scenario 1.

The statistical analysis indicated that Vessel 38 and 29 were ranked the highest risk
and were significantly different from Vessel 37 and 24, those ranked third and fourth
highest risk (p= 0.011). These rankings and relative differences in risk were also
confirmed in the post-scenario interviews. These results are in close agreement with
the COLREGS interpretation, except for the inclusion of Vessel 24 as an high risk
(relatively) vessel, although it’s rating is not significantly difference from Vessel 30.

Figure 2: Highest risk scores for top six targets in Scenario 1 (rank order based on
aggregate participant responses).

The majority of the participants described Scenario 1 as challenging because there

are no systematic rules of “behavior” for the other vessels; one participant said “it is
to drive into a bunch of vessels and see what will happen”. It seemed that TCPA was
more important than range to other vessel in ranking relative risk. Vessels in north –
southerly or south – northerly directions same to own vessel are considered to be
the main direction in the scenario by the participants. Crossing vessels are
considered as disturbances to the traffic system. The scenario contains almost equal
amounts of vessels going north – south versus south-north compared to west – east
traffic movement.

Scenario 2 (Calais Approach)

Figure 3 represents the complete ARPA data at time of termination of Scenario 2 (i.e.
all vessels are represented but may not be what the participant had selected at that
time). Figure 4 is the aggregate data for assessed risk in Scenario 2.
Figure 3: ARPA representation at time of termination of Scenario 2.

In Scenario 2 there is traffic inbound and outbound from Calais. Vessels 9, 10 & 24
are outbound, and vessels 1, 12, 20 & 25 are inbound. At the termination of the
scenario following vessels should be under close observation:
1. Vessel 10, outbound from Calais. Distance 1.0 nm and a CPA of 0.31 nm.
Own ship just passing the heading line of the other and the situation is
relatively safe.
2. Vessel 1 an inbound cruise vessel in front of own ship. No risk of collision at
this moment, but the other vessel has to slow down soon.
3. Vessel 25, inbound bulk carrier ahead, distance 2.3 nm and CPA of 0.81 nm.
No risk of collision at the moment, but when own ship change course to port
to enter the port area, the CPA will be less, maybe even zero and own ship
will be the give-way vessel.
4. Vessel 24, outbound container vessel, which could interfere with own ship
after the course has been changed to port.
Figure 4: Highest risk scores for top five targets in Scenario 2 (rank order based on
aggregate participant responses).

The statistical analysis indicated that Vessel 10 and 25 were ranked the highest risk
and were significantly different from Vessel 24 and 1, those ranked third and fourth
highest risk (p= 0.005). These rankings and relative differences in risk were also
confirmed in the post-scenario interviews. These results are in close agreement with
the COLREGS interpretations for the general scenario overview.

Participants ranked Vessel 10 as highest risk due to the short distance and close
CPA value. Most of the participants argue that Vessel 10 is close but well clear on
ownship’s starboard side and therefore marked at risk 2 by some. Vessel 25 will
emerge to be the next close situation on the way to Calais and because of its
distance it was considered to be highest risk by some participants. It seems that for
other vessels, there is a limit for the CPA, that determines whether the ship is
interesting or not. Within the limit it makes little difference whether it is 0.3M or 0.7M,
TCPA controls the risk assessment instead. Some people also talk about the relative
speed impact that makes things happen faster at a high relative speed.

AIS data or any other route information is missing in the scenario and was requested
by the majority of participants in order to figure out other ships intention or route.
Without AIS or other route information, participants seemed to create an
understanding of the system by looking at other ship movements and figure out
possible destination or route.

At start of the scenario vessel 9 is just south of were vessel 10 is in figure 3 and
navigating to north east after passing a bouy marked with white dot in the figure 3.
As vessel 10 are following same track from Calais as vessel 9 and are of similar size
subjects tend to say that it will go northeast without any more facts then that previous
vessel did so. One subject clearly said in the interview after the Scenario "he would
follow previous ship from the same place", this is one evidence of looking for
patterns to adapt own navigation.

Scenario 3 (Traffic Separation Scheme)

Figure 5 represents the complete ARPA data at time of termination of Scenario 3 (i.e.
all vessels are represented but may not be what the participant had selected at that
time). Figure 6 is the aggregate data for assessed risk in Scenario 3.

Figure 5: ARPA representation at time of termination of Scenario 1.

In a TSS, the traffic could be divided into the following: traffic in opposite direction,
crossing traffic and traffic outside the traffic lane. Head-on situations should not
occur when you follow a traffic lane, but there will be overtaking situations and
crossing situations. Own ship has one crossing vessel from the starboard (10) with a
CPA of 0.47 nm. The vessel is joining the traffic lane and changes course to
starboard when entering the lane. Vessel 18 is crossing from port, CPA 0.48 nm, and
is the give-way vessel.

At scenario termination, the following vessels should be under close observation:

1. Vessel 18, crossing from port side with a CPA of 0.49 nm and a TCPA of 4
minutes. The vessel is give-way vessel and is changing course just after the
freeze.
2. Vessel 26, a ferry on the starboard bow, outside the TSS. CPA is 0.78 nm, but
the ferry shows the intention of crossing the TSS, but very late changes the
course south and stay within the Inshore Traffic Zone.
3. Vessel 7, 8, 15 & 27, all slow vessels maneuvering in the separation zone.
Normally they continue with fishing or work within the separation zone, but
some attention is necessary.

Figure 6: Highest risk scores for top five targets in Scenario 3 (rank order based on
aggregate participant responses).
The statistical analysis indicated no significant difference in relative risk over the first
four vessels. These results are in close agreement with the COLREGS
interpretations for the general scenario overview.

The TSS is a predetermined pattern of movement of ships and with rules for how
ships that do not follow the main traffic flow should act. Participants were looking for
deviations from the predetermined system around the traffic flow in the TSS. CPA
and TCPA are less important in this scenario compared to the other scenarios. Trails
are used to a greater extent than vectors to follow the history of how the ships have
moved to create understand for the traffic system. It was observed from most
participants that they preferred to have trails instead of vectors at the start of the
scenario, as the course history revealed more about how the system was evolving
than the vector information.

Conclusions

When navigating within complex traffic situations one has to consider multiple vessel
targets, restricted navigational water ways, prescribed TSS, special notifications,
changing weather conditions, instrumentation challenges among other issues. While
the instruction of COLREGS has been systematically embedded in educational
programs and re-enforced through vocational experience, these can be
systematically enforced with considering the conflict between two vessels. When
more than two vessels are considered, as is the case with the heavy traffic schemes
considered in the three scenarios considered in this paper, there will likely be
participant variability in how COLREGS are considered to assess overall risk and
inform navigation maneuvering (Belcher, 2002).

It is clear from our interviews that professional mariners look for patterns in all three
scenarios as a basis for understanding the complexity of the scenario. The first
scenario lacks a clear system, so participant feel lost especially when they lack the
charts. The participants then focus on TCPA to handle a two-vessel situation as they
occur over time. This adheres to the COLREGS and is the appropriate approach to
handling a complex open water scenario without AIS or Route information. In
Scenario 2, participants try to identify a patterning system to relate to, which they
seems to learn during the first few minutes of navigating within the scenario, as most
decide to follow the cruise vessel. In most cases a COLREGS approach cannot be
solely used to assess risk and a more social navigation approach is adopted
(Belcher, 2002). In Scenario 3, the traffic pattern considerations are greatly
influenced because of the TSS. Risk is not likely based on TCPA and/or CPA, but it
is assessed on those vessels likely not clearly engaged in the TSS. In summary, as
complexity increases the importance of COLREGS on deciding navigation strategies
seems to be coupled with how the participant recognizes patterns within the traffic
flow.

In all three scenarios it was clear that participants could agree upon the two vessels
that posed the highest risk for safety. In most cases, there was agreement in the 3 rd
and 4th highest risk, but these were statistically different from the 1st and 2nd. The
agreement upon relative risk within the group became much more variable after the
1st and 2nd vessel were identified and likely reflects the cognitive ability to monitor the
many targets presented in each scenario (Klein, 1998).

References
Belcher, P (2002). A sociological interpretation of the COLREGS. The Journal of
Navigation, 55, pp. 213-224.

Klein, G. (1998). The Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, MIT Press,
USA.

International Maritime Organization (1972). Convention on the International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs).
 CULTIVATE OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS TO SAFE WATCHKEEPING
ON BRIDGE: SIMULATION TRAINING BY SOCIO-TECHNICAL
SCENARIO

HU Shenping (Merchant Marine College, Shanghai Maritime University. Shanghai, China)

FANG Quangen (Merchant Marine College, Shanghai Maritime University. Shanghai, China)
ZHAO Guanyang (Merchant Marine College, Shanghai Maritime University. Shanghai, China)
LIU Yongli (Department of Navigation, Qingdao Ocean Shipping Mariners College, Qingdao, China)
Sphu@shmtu.edu.cn

Abstract

Relating to the safety of navigation personnel, ship safety and the environment, human factors in
accidents occupied a large proportion of cases from Bridge Resource Management. Accident cases
showed that only actively involved in the coordination by bridge team, it is necessary to make
appropriate response to the bridge resources for the implementation of the navigational watch of
ships and strengthen the OOW's responsibility to ensure the safety of navigation, and to prevent
the occurrence of accidents. The captain and OOW should take relevant measures on bridge
resource management, and keep full attention to the latest requirements, principles and guidelines
of IMO MSC, in line with the circumstances of the cases, to ensure safety on board for the
purpose of maintaining a continuous duty and management.

In this paper, situational awareness level of the ship on the experimental was analysis under the
impact of ships navigation simulator, combined with situational awareness theory, explores the
use of navigation simulator for ships and majors in the OOW situational awareness training
methods.

Introduction
Large proportion of accidents are caused because of human factor in Bridge Resource
Management, safety of navigation is closely related with the security of personnel, ships and
environment. To avoid the mistakes or misfortunes by analyzing typical accident case, not only
depends on bridge spirit of unity and cooperation, but also strengthen pilot’s education in sailing
duties, disciplines, beliefs and current policies. In order to insure the safety navigation, captain and
operators on duty must maintain continuous watches and management on board as well as follow
the latest requirements, principles and guidelines from the International Maritime Organization.
The study of this paper analyses the factors which influences ship safety manning based on the
level of situational awareness, demonstrates how to develop navigators and navigation class
specialized student’s situational awareness by using marine simulator.

1. Developmental strategy and implement of BRM training in China

The foreign BRM qualification is designed into two categories: marine simulator with bridge team
model course based on IMO standard and not standard but only selected the related knowledge
from STCW 2010 of table A-Ⅱ/1.
The 3 to 5-days BRM training provides the voyage schedule, bridge procedures, risk assessment,
leadership, team collaboration, situational awareness and simulator operating including principles,
responsibilities, effective communication. Each student participating in the training must have 6 to
12 months on board watching experience to have an effective understanding of BRM knowledge.
With the enforcement of STCW 2010 amendment, BRM training is fully carried out in China,
BRM competency was listed on exam outline and evaluation standard, It’s divided into theories
and marine simulator operating. Crew promotion must accept BRM training.
The BRM theoretical knowledge of watch onboard a ship of more than 500 tons is covered in ship
management, ship handling and collision prevention course by maritime authority of China. Those
courses including BRM summarize, bridge teamwork, communication, decision making and
leadership, situational awareness receiving and maintaining, stress and fatigue, human error and
prevention.
The training program for chief officer and second officer almost the same mainly includes
navigation direction plan, contingency plan, resource management, bridge teamwork, emergency
rescue for drowning person, Anti-Collision under special situation. Ship handling and
Anti-Collision under particular water area, search and rescue mission but not including rescue for
drowning person has been adopt to the training program of captain.
Through the practice and verify of recent years, we found out the trainees ability to attend the
training of BRM simulator is comparatively insufficient for two main reasons: (1) The trainees in
China are generally students, the bridge resource could not be managed effectively as they are
short of sailing experience and without any situational awareness. (2)The training program is
formulated too complicate which as same as used for chief officer, in order to improve the
efficiency of BRM training, this must be adjust and improved accordingly.

2. BRM operation level of KUP Training needs requested by college students in China
The training can be arranged based on the amendment of table A-Ⅱ/1 from STCW 2010 as same
as other countries which including allocation of resources, dispatch and priorities, effective
communication, judgment and leadership, obtain and maintain situation awareness.
2.1 BRM operation level of KUP
The training program shall be set up based on sailing duties to insure the safety navigation.
(Content listed on Table 1.)

Table 1. BRM operation level training program and scene settings

Training Scenario description Behavior
program
Site condition Support needed because of poor visibility, Increase of manpower, captain
recognition limited traffic with effect of the safety should be informed.
navigation..
Sailing Requested for proper use of ARPA, GPS or Dynamical mark of ship’s position
DGPS while sailing around crowded coastal captured electronically or
area, (There might be poor visibility) Vessel transmitting information by vision.
position monitoring and bridge task Communicate across VHF, take
assignment. ARPA task assignment. charge of engine telegraph, proper
execution of helm order, logbook
 recording.
Anti-Collision Sailing around land or shoals with poor Risk identification, safety
visibility, Safety sailing and Anti-Collision information and suggestion should
must be focus while entering and departing be report the navigating officer.
ports. ARPA task assignment.

Sailing and Requested for proper use of ARPA, GPS or
Anti-Collision DGPS while sailing around the high seas,
task assigned for risk identification.
Bridge team Team building, Monitoring of ship sailing,
building collision risk assessment.
Priority Ships sailing around the crowded area with
good visibility:
1. Approaching ship from starboard bow
which brings the risk of collision.
2. Alter course to starboard side but the
depth of flow is insufficient for
navigation.
3. Heavy oil was been used.
4. Approaching ship with opposite course
from front left, range 1.5 miles, CPA 0.5
miles.
5. GMDSS distress alerting
Dynamical mark of ship’s position
based on proper time lag,
observations of approaching ships
in action, sailing risk alarm, course
changing predicted and
anti-collision.
Defines required numbers of bridge
team, assignment of tasks to each
team members
1. Evaluate the situation.
2. Achieved good results by
focusing on the most important
priorities.
3. Decreasing speed or stop the
ship to insure enough time for
anti-collision
4. Alert Reset after no signs of
danger.

The complex sailing environment, ship structures, ship reconstructed and ship overload raises the
traffic accidents but mainly resulted from human factors. While in the critical situation,
appropriate emergency measures must be taken by marine navigator to reduce or eliminate the
accident loss, it’s about the reasonable management of bridge resources.
 Fig.1 Knowledge system in Bridge resource management

2.2. Situational awareness training

Based on the study of collision, lack of situational awareness is a cause that could not be ignored
from a maritime accident. Situational awareness concept firstly appeared in the aviation
psychology in order to describe pilots understanding of flying manipulation. To accurately
understand the flying situation including factors that affect flight safety, aircraft on pitch and yaw,
wind direction, wind speed, outside temperature and height. Situational awareness is the
corresponding changing measurement against the external environment. Failure on the pilot
control is often referred to the lack of situational awareness, it is a key factor which affecting the
decision-making and operator’s performance under the complex and dynamic environment.
The most widely used in the definition of situational awareness is presented by Professor Endsley.
Situational awareness refers to acknowledge and predict of environmental factors and
development within a specific time and space. In traffic psychology research, pilot situational
awareness refers to the knowledge, understanding and prediction of navigation environment,
navigation marks, weather conditions and many other sailing elements. Currently, pilot situational
awareness research is divided into three aspects. First, take the situational awareness as an internal
cognitive phenomenon which should focused on the analysis of navigator’s psychology. Second is
from engineering perspective to study the situational awareness through different ship handling
technology and route infrastructure that mainly focused on the analysis of artifacts. Third, study
the situation awareness from systematic engineering, focused on the navigator, artifacts and the
interactions between them, this mainly analysis on the socio-technical systems.
Professor Endsley defined from the perspective of cognitive psychology with information
processing model, it divides situational awareness into three phases: perception, understanding
and prediction.
The first phase is the perception which refers to the cognition of surrounding environment. For
example, if the ship is sailing in a narrow waterway, the navigator must look over and selective
attention to the surrounding ship types, quantities, course, speed, shipping lane, depth of water,
navigation mark, visibility and so on. At this stage, people have a choice to pay attention to some
of the key elements (selective attention) and be able to briefly remember these key elements along
with the characteristics (short-term memory) is an important prerequisite for good situation
awareness.
The second phase is the understanding which refers to the awareness and judgment of relationship
between the previous stage in memory and the key elements of it. For example, while sailing, the
surrounding ships which will turning, which will overtaking, which will guarantee the security
speed, which will out of control and so on. At this stage, people’s working memory and people's
long-term memory plays a very important role.
The third phase is the prediction, estimate and comparing in order to determining a best mode of
operation based on the results of various behavioral outcomes from the first two phases. For
example, navigate must with reduced speed when sailing on the narrow waterway with many
surrounded vessels, the visibility deteriorated. At this stage, decisiveness and personalities play an
important role in decision-making, such as differences in cognitive style or differences in values
will determine the individual assessment of certain behavior and preferences.
Situational awareness is a key element that leads to achieve the goal, which is to say to understand
anywhere around and know what it is and what is about to happen.
Situational awareness means to locate, identify failure chain, and stop it before the accident.
Maintain a high level of situational awareness can keep the upcoming events that related to team
task in safe, loss of situational awareness means that failure chain is creating. The higher level of
situational awareness will reduce the risk of accident. Otherwise it will bring the high risk.
2.3 Access to situational awareness
Approach to access personal situation awareness:
(1) Experience
Experience is the knowledge or practical skills that gained from many practices and observation
then applied to subsequent jobs. Sailing is a practical work. Navigation practice is an important
approach to enhance the sensitivity and accuracy.
(2) Planning and preparation
Deviation and problems can be discovered in time based on careful planning and preparation,
things development also can be predicted through it.
(3) Skills of resource management
Through the management, coordination and organization of available resources especially with
bridge team collaboration is an effective approach to obtain a high level of situational awareness.
(4) Communication and feedback
Effective communication and feedback is the way to ensure the adequate exchange of ship bridge
information, it’s an important part and key measures of obtaining and maintaining personal
situational awareness.

It should be noted that, relying on the accumulation of theoretical knowledge is difficult for the
individual to obtain a high level of situational awareness. According to statistical data analysis,
participate in the experiment of maritime students although its nautical navigation, ship handling,
anti-collision, maritime English are completed, and most of students can pass the competency
exam, but the results show they hardly have the appropriate situation awareness. To obtain a high
level of situational awareness must be repeated through the corresponding situation, navigation
simulator is the best way to provide a variety of complex navigation situation.

3. Plan of Simulator scenario and training of trainee

Ship bridge is equivalent to the human brain, It’s the commander while sailing. Bridge Resource
management emphasizes navigator’s ability of team building, communication, leadership,
decision-making and it should be applied to an organized management with the core of human
factors. A number of ship management companies have the following special requirements in duty
level, keel clearance, distance, position and etc.

3.1 Navigational watch

In order to make better use of the bridge resources, highly recommended grading duty of
navigational watch to ensure the safety sailing. Navigational watch divided into four level （Ⅰ、
Ⅱ、Ⅲ or Ⅳ）, to maintain the correct grade of duty is the primary factor to ensure the safety.
(1) The captain has the responsibility to set up an appropriate level of duty and to maintain the
proper watch.
(2) Duty level change. For example, the commander is not automatically changed from duty level
Ⅰ to Ⅱ, change of commander must be clearly informed and confirmed, and must be record in
the deck log.
(3) All bridge duty operators including steers, skilled sailor and interns must fully understand their
responsibilities. The captain is responsible for ensuring that all crew must be trained properly.
While sailing, bridge duty level is set up by the captain based on the different situation from table
2,3,4,5.

Table 2. Sailing at open water

Weather condition Navigation Status Duty level
Good visibility No surrounding ships( seldom traffic) Ⅰ
Good visibility Heavy traffic Ⅱ
Restricted visibility No surrounding ships (seldom traffic) Ⅱ
Restricted visibility Heavy traffic Ⅱ or Ⅲ

Table 3. Sailing at restricted Water

Weather condition Navigation Status Duty level
Good visibility No surrounding ships( seldom traffic) Ⅱ
Good visibility Heavy traffic Ⅱ or Ⅲ
Restricted visibility No surrounding ships (seldom traffic) Ⅱ
Restricted visibility Heavy traffic Ⅱ or Ⅲ

Table 4. Entering and leaving port

Weather condition Navigation Status Duty level
Good visibility Few surrounding ships( seldom traffic) Ⅰ
Good visibility Heavy traffic Ⅱ or Ⅲ
Restricted visibility Few surrounding ships (seldom traffic) Ⅱ or Ⅲ
Restricted visibility Heavy traffic Ⅱ or Ⅲ

Table 5. Bridge team building of different duty level

Duty level Anti-collision Communication Navigation steering watch
Ⅰ OOW AB
Ⅱ Captain OOW AB
Ⅲ Captain OOW AB Sailor
IV Pilot Captain/ OOW AB Sailor

3.2 Keel clearance

To ensure the safety navigation, the water depth must meet certain requirements in order to adapt
to the ship operation terms and conditions, so that the water depth must exceeds the actual draft
and maintain a certain safety margin, this is commonly referred to keel clearance. Each marine
navigator must fully understand the meaning of keel clearance always keep the extra depth.
Keel clearance formula: Keel clearance = charted depth + local standard height of tide by then -
the actual maximum draft while stationary. According to the objective scientific of keel clearance
obtained from the above formula, the potential risk of water depth must be clearly marked with a
red pencil while second officer preparing the sailing plan. (See table 1),

Fig 2. Risk been clearly marked with red line

But while sailing on the crucial waterway, there are some references to determine the keel
clearance.
(1).European Association has following recommendations on the keel clearance for ships
entering and leaving port of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp. (See table 6)
Table 6. Suggested ship keel clearance
Navigation area Large vessel VLCC
Open water 20% draught 15% draught
crowded water out of the port 15% draught 10% draught
Inside of the port 10% draught 5% draught

(2) Straits of Malacca, Singapore Straits has the limit of at least draught to 3.5m for the VLCC
ships with draught above 15m and DWT above 15 tones while border crossing.
(3) Port of Shanghai provides the limit of 0.6m keel clearance for the ships sailing through the
Yangtze estuary south waterway
(4)See table 7 for the keel clearance standard of inland major port in Japan (d=ship draft)
Table 7. Keel clearance standard of inland major port in Japan
Ship draught range Keel clearance standard
d<9m 5% d
9 m ≤ d < 12 m 8% d
d ≥ 12 m 10% d

3.3 Positioning interval

Turning point before each positioning interval must be clearly marked on the nautical chart. (See
table 2).

Fig.3 Turing point before each positioning interval

As mentioned earlier, because of the rapid sailing makes the distance growing, the positioning
interval must be carefully considered and approved by captain. General rules of positioning
interval as indicated in table 8.
Table 8. General rules of positioning interval
Navigation area positioning interval
Restricted water Locate at least once/every hour
Open water Locate at least once/every 12 min
Restricted of keel clearance and foul water Locate at least once/every 6 min

4. China college students KUP training for BRM operating level

4.1 Experimental scene content design of simulator
First, elaborate the practice in simulator as similar as the above collision case with exact time,
water area, visibility and wind direction as a realistically accident scene. In order to fulfill the
training requirement changes only be made on the mathematic model of ship number XTH,
replaced with a displacement of 60,000 tons bulk carrier. There are two identical simulation
experiments with different groups only.
Experiment 1: Subjects for the captain within transition period, navigators and BRM trainees, total
15 periods, 8 – 10 peoples in each period, 3 ships with 3 – 4 peoples in each ship, bridge team
formed by captain, chief officer, second officer or third officer. This exercise is scheduled as the
second simulation exercise after the student familiar with the equipment and ship model. Except
for theory course, there’s no targeted simulation exercise or any other suggestive presentation
before this exercise. Experimental result: no similar collision accident happened in 45 simulation
exercises, it always keep above 0.2 miles between the vessel which not under command.
Experiment 2: Subjects for maritime college students in vocational colleges, II level of ship
handling, anti-collision and BRM trainees. Total 5 classes, 35—40 trainee in each class, divided
into two groups, one group in the morning and the other one in the afternoon, around 20 peoples in
each group. Total 4 ships, each bridge team was formed by 4—5 trainee. This exercise is
scheduled as the first simulation exercise after the student familiar with the equipment and ship
model. Except for theory course, there’s no suggestive presentation before this exercise.
Experimental result: 3 similar collision accidents happened in 40 simulation exercises, CPA ＜
0.2 between the vessel which not under command for twice.

4.2 Results analysis

Experiment 1: Because the BRM trainees have rich working experience and proper duties formed
better bridge team, when they first heard about the warning from vessel VHF Number B0,it arouse
their vigilance and they communicate with the vessel which out of command promptly to
understand it’s dynamic condition, some ships obtained the further information of it from VTS,
some even found this and determined the correct situation judgment before they send out the
warning signal through the observation of Radar. More than half of them would be able to realize
the vessel which out of command would turn right out of the main channel, heading for inshore
traffic zone. High level of situational awareness made an accurate judgment to avoid the sudden
urgency in the first place.
Experiment 2: As mentioned earlier all trainees are students at school, they almost complete all
professional theory course and preparing for the unified examination. Due to poor learning
conditions, students without any sailing experience only has one chance to practice in the ferry
from Yantai – Dalian. Students almost has no reaction when receiving the warning from ship
Number B0 although most of them students through examination of CET 4. After observation, we
found that people on duties only focused on observation of radar and ECDIS, they never
communicate with the vessel which out of command. They perceive the situation changes without
any proper response, this is to say they are lack of situational awareness of their jobs, situation,
anti-collision only be operated until the last minute. We found out situational awareness has a
significant impact on the safety navigation according to experimental results.

5. Conclusion
Obtain the high level of situational awareness and maintain it through systematic design and
scientific training, the crew resource management training in aviation has proved this point
currently. It deserves research and application in maritime education and training.
Based on the collision cases above result from experiment 2, the new simulator exercise has been
designed in order to improve students' situational awareness level. Subjects are identical to
experiment 2. The difference is the exercise of situational awareness should be arranged after
simulation training. First is the theory lessons explain about the vessel which out of command
especially the emergency operation, secondly, main engine trouble issue designed in the ships and
lead to out of control. Let each ship to take emergency measures as required, check the main
engine and control system and identify the failure conditions. Replace the available control system
If it fails, notified engine room and report to the captain. Require for sound signals while
displaying with ―out of control‖. Exert rudder and side thruster effect to make the ship sailing out
of the main channel, preparation of anchor to ensure they are available at anytime. Report to VTS,
send radio signal to warning the surrounding ships, etc. Summarized and commented after finish
the exercise.
Repeat this experiment on the next day. Student’s behavior changes significantly after the
experiment, they becomes particularly sensitive for the warning signal from the vessel which out
of command. The majority of students are able to predict the vessel which out of command would
use right turn steering, so almost all of them can deal well with the situation encountered. There’s
no collision accident in 40 simulation exercises. The level of student’s situational awareness
would be greater improved by given conclusions and comments after the exercises.
As it can be seen from the simulator experiment, although students in the school completed all of
the sailing theoretical study but their situational awareness level is very low or without basic
situational awareness. Even they practice on board after graduation, as some of the situation on
board is rarely encountered and it is difficult for them to collect comprehensive navigation
knowledge. Therefore, through the rational design and arrangement of simulation repeat exercises
to obtain the high level situational awareness combined with the current navigation requests for
ship maneuvering, anti-collision, BRM training and assessment. This also has significance for
guarantee the safety navigation.
Modern navigation technology education is inseparable from navigation simulator, marine
simulator has become an important device in the world sailing skills training and assessment. As a
State Party (STCW Convention and the STCW Code) of Manila amendment, fulfill the Manila
amendment is our bounden obligations. As crew training institutions and supervisory bodies
should take effective measures to strengthen the management of marine simulator training and
assessment, do good marine simulator training and evaluation to ensure the quality of marine
simulator training and assessment is one of the preconditions to improve the international crew
labor market competitiveness, but also the indispensable condition to ensure the safety of life and
property of the ship.
 ［1］DURSO F T，GRONLUND S D． Situation awareness．In: Durso Fed． Handbook
of applied cognition［M］． New York: John Wiley ＆ Sons，1999: 283 － 314．
［2］ ENDSLEY MR． Situation awareness in aviation systems．In Garland D J，Wise J A，
Hopkin VD． Handbook of aviation human factors［M］． Mahwah，NJ: Erlbaum，1999: 257
－ 276．
［3］Federal Aviation Administration． Crew resource management training: Advisory
Circular ( AC No: 120 － 51e)［M］． Washington，DC: Federal Aviation Administration，Flight
Standards Service，2004．

Ph. D Shenping HU, a Professor at Shanghai Maritime University. Born in 1974 and
Graduated from the Shanghai Maritime University in 1996 and worked as a teacher of
this university at the same year. He started development work with navigation
simulator after 1999 and has been an instructor in maritime simulation training since
2001. He achieved his doctoral degree in maritime risk assessment at Shanghai
Maritime University in 2010. He has been staying at Tokyo University of Merchant
Marine as a visiting scholar for simulation training in 2001 and also at the Australia
Maritime University in 2010 as visiting scholar for research work of Formal Safety
Assessment (FSA) hold in the maritime field. He is mainly working with the research
and application of the nautical science and development on the ship safety operation
and management. He has published over 100 papers, respectively by EI, SCI retrieval
more than 30 articles.

FANG Quangen, the Professor of the Shanghai Maritime University. Graduated from
the Shanghai Maritime University in 1976 and worked as a teacher of this university
at the same year. Started training work with navigation simulator after joining the
―Simulator Instructor Training Course‖ in the Nautical College Warshash,
Southampton, UK in 1985. Having the postgraduate study course of ―Maritime
Education and Training (Nautical) Course‖ at the World Maritime University from
1990-1991 in Sweden. Staying at the Liverpool John Moorse University in 2003 as a
senior visiting professor for research work of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) in the
maritime field. .Mainly working with the teaching & Training of the nautical students
and research on the ship safety operation and management.
Captain Karel Wiegert MNI

Elevator Pitch

He was Maritime Pilot in the Port of Amsterdam and Instructor Shore Bases Pilo-
tage (SBP) until 2009.
At the moment he works as a Consultant for Csmart as Ship handling instructor
and Assessor in Proficiency Training and Promotion Assessments.

He studies for a Master Degree in Maritime Shipping Innovation on the Dutch Island
Terschelling at the Maritime Institute Willem Barentsz.

He holds his Certificate of Competency as Master (STCW 95).

CSMART – Centre for Simulator MARitime Training | Zeeduinweg 9, 1361 BG Almere, The Netherlands
Tel: +31(0) 36 310 7000 website: www.carnivalgroup.com
Kvk 32141387 | VAT 8199.08.836 B.01
CSMART is a Carnival plc Company | Registered in England Company Number 4039524
 Techniques for Ship Handling and Team Management

Prof. E. Dr. Hiroaki Kobayashi

Tokyo Univ. of Marine Science and Technology
e-mail: kobayasi@kaiyoudai.ac.jp

Abstract: We have been executing the studies on the techniques for ship handling and team management
for over 20 years. And we have reported the study results step by step in the international conferences such
as IMLA, INSLC, MARSIM, ACMSSR and so on.
Today, we have summarized all of them and published the book entitled “Techniques for Ship Handling
and Team Management”. The proposed theory developed the new aspect on the human functions on the
operation in huge systems such as ship handling and activities by plural human. The theory clarifies the
human responsibility and the function significance in the huge system operation. They have never been
understood by the people outside of the society of the operators. And what was even worse, in some cases
the human working in the system does not know his importance. The theory changes the meaning of
human operator in the system and it will make the system operation safer than present situations.
In the book, the functions human achieves for safe navigation are analyzed and develop the systematic
techniques discussion. It clarified the meanings of mariner’s functions for the ship handling system. The
basic condition for the safety involving human and all of relating factors including the environment of
weather and see state, ships’ traffic, rules, support systems, and so on is defined. We can understand the
characteristics of present huge system managed by human operator. The discussion here is able to be
enlarged to all of huge systems involving human.
Second important issue is to clarify the essence of operating the system by plural human. It is defined
what is differences for operating between single operator and plural ones. Necessary functions for
maintaining the sufficient operation based on the functional analysis on team activities. It is also basic
theory for the team management of the system operating by plural human.
Authors introduce the important issues of human functions, necessary condition of safety and team
management.

Key word: human factor, ship handling, condition of safety, team management

INTRODUCTION 1. NECESSARY CONDITION of SAFE

Author have published the book entitle
“Techniques on ship handling and Team
management”. The research results on the
techniques for ship handling and team
management are summarized in the book. English
version of the book will be published shortly. In
this paper, some parts of it are introduced for make
understand the contents. The book has almost
300pages, but this paper has limited. So, only few
parts will be introduced. In the book, closing parts
of each important discussion present the important
summary by boxed article. Some of these boxed
articles are shown for understanding the results of
researches on each issue. The italic type sentences
in this paper are extracted sentences from the
book.
NAVIGATION
1.1 Relating Factors for defining Safe Navigation
Many factors are relating to the condition of
safe navigation. It is often understood that most of
causes of accidents are human’s behaviors when
accident happen. In this paper, we will discuss the
necessary condition for safety based on human
factor and others including all of factors except
human who achieves main function in operating
the system such as ship. Then we will discuss
human and others are separately in following
section. Here, all of other factors except human
are named as the factor of navigational
environment.
(1) Condition of navigational environment
Navigational environment are shown as blow.
They decide the difficulty of navigation. The
relation between each navigational condition
and the difficulty are shown in detail in the
book.
1) Maneuvering characteristics of own
ship
2) Geographic feature and water
condition
3) Weather and sea state
4) Marine traffic condition
5) Rules of navigation
6) Installed navigation support systems
7) Onshore navigation support systems
(2) Seafarer’s competency
It is a mariner’s competency to achieve the
safe navigation under specific navigational
condition. Seafarer’s competency is decided by
following factors
1) Seafarer’s license rank
2) Seafarer’s experience on board
3) Fatigue of seafarer
4) Stress of seafarer
1.2 Necessary Conditions for Safe Navigation
In the previous section, I showed that
navigational difficulty is determined by the
environmental conditions in a specific water area.
Therefore, seafarer competency must be greater
than the difficulty of the water area in order to
achieve safe navigation. This indicates that
necessary seafarer competency relative to the
competency required by environment. How to
balance the two in order to realize safe ship
navigation needs to be discussed. Fig. 1 illustrates
the relationship of the two. The horizontal axis
indicates the competency required by environment,
the vertical axis shows the achievable competency
of seafarers. The straight 45 degree inclined line
in the figure indicates where the values for both
are the same. In other words, if the situation on
the straight line can be ensured, then the
competency required by environment and the
achievable competency by seafarers is equal,
seafarers are thus capable of performing the
competency required by environment, and safety
can be ensured. This means that safe ship
navigation may be realized. The region above the
straight line is where seafarers can realize higher
competency than that required by the environment,
and safe navigation is achievable. On the other
hand, the region below the straight line indicates
that seafarers cannot realize the competency level
required by the environment, and thus navigation
is dangerous. From this viewpoint, the 45 degree
line in the figure may be considered the limit line
indicating the boundary between safe conditions
and dangerous conditions.
Fig. 1 shows the basic idea for determining safe
ship navigation. Therefore, safety in ship
navigation is achieved when seafarers have
sufficient competency for given environmental
conditions. On the other hand, it also means that if
seafarers have the standard competency but
cannot manage safe navigation, then the
navigational environment needs to be improved.
Conditions for establishing safe ship navigation
determined by the relationship of the competency
required by the navigational environment and the
competency level of seafarers
Seafarer competency level
Dangerous
45 ° situations
Competency level required by
environment
Fig. 1 Necessary conditions for safe navigation
according to the relationship between
competency required by navigational
environment and seafarer competency
Fig.2 discusses the variations in the situation.
Some factors of navigational environment often
change, that is maritime traffic condition, weather
and sea state. Also seafarer’s competency may
change due to fatigue and stress. Fig. 1 shows the
constants situation on both conditions. Next, the
transition of safety degree due to changes of both
condition are determined referring Fig. 2.
Changes in safety due to changes in seafarer
competency and required competency
C
Seafarer competency
μH
A B
F
D
μE
Competency required by environment
Fig. 2 Changes in the ship navigation safety due to
changes in environment and variations in
seafarer competency
 In Fig. 2, µE is the mean value for competency
required by environment and µH is the mean value
of seafarer competency. When both are the mean
value, condition is indicated by situation A. This
situation is a situation above the 45 degree line,
which means that safe navigation is achievable. In
contrast, when environmental conditions worsen
and navigational difficulty increases, the
competency level required of seafarers rises, the
situation at A shifts to the right and is represented
as a change to the situation at B. In the situation
at B, the competency that can be realized by
seafarers is lower than the required competency,
thus indicating a change to dangerous situation.
When in response, seafarers increase their
concentration and become capable of a high
degree of information processing (seafarer
competency rises), the situation shifts to C, which
is above the 45 degree limit line, which means that
safe navigation is again possible. On the other
Necessary Conditions for Safe Navigation
hand, if seafarers shows lower competency than
average as a result of fatigue or other factors,
even if environment conditions are maintained in
the average, the situation shifts to that at D. This
situation is lower than the 45 degree limit line, so
safe navigation is unachievable. If seafarers shows
little awareness and environmental conditions
worsen, the situation becomes even more
dangerous. This situation may be represented by
point F. The further the vertical distance from the
45 degree limit line, the more dangerous the
situation, indicating an increase in risk of
accidents occurring.
Main part of discussion on the necessary condition
of safe navigation is copied from specific parts in
the book. At the end of the sentence mentioned
above, the following boxed item is shown,

1. Safe navigation is determined by a balance of the competency required by

environment and the achievable competency of seafarers.
2. When the competency required by environment is greater than the achievable
competency of seafarers, safe navigation is difficult to realize.
3. When the competency required by environment is less than the achievable
competency of seafarers, the possibility of realizing safe navigation increases.

2. NECESSARY TECHNIQUES for SAFE

NAVIGATION

As mentioned before, Navigational condition is The safe navigation may keep by seafarer
given, not changeable. In the condition the safety competency. In the book, following nine elemental
level of navigation is decided by seafarer techniques are shown as indispensable for
behaviors. maintaining safe navigation.
Development of Technical Elements for Navigation Techniques

The necessary techniques for realizing safe navigation may be categorized and organized
according to the following nine elements.
1. Techniques for passage planning
2. Techniques for lookout
3. Techniques for position fixing
4. Techniques for maneuvering
5. Techniques in compliance with rules of navigation and other laws and regulations
6. Techniques for communication
7. Techniques for instrument operation
8. Techniques for emergencies
9. Techniques for managing techniques and people
2.1 Detail explanation on Nine Elemental
Techniques

The indispensable important techniques for safe
navigation have been clarified. They are never
proposed systematically even by International
regulations. The following Table is one part of
list of Nine Elemental Techniques. The definition,
main functions and affecting factors to achieve the
function of technique are listed for each elemental
technique in the table.
Moreover, for each elemental technique, the
meaning of definition, detail explanation of
proposed function of technique and the affecting
factors are explained how the factor disturb the
function in the actual situation.
Table shows the definition, main functions and
affecting factors to achieve the techniques of
Position fixing and Lookout.

Estimate own ship position by selecting optimal targets visually and with
Position
navigational instruments for estimating own ship position. Techniques are
fixing
included for estimating factors affecting own ship movements and their
(Definition)
magnitude.
(1) Select methods of collecting information for position fixing
(Select measuring instruments, select targets for position fixing)
(Main (2)(2) Estimate own ship position (required accuracy and frequency)
functions)(3)(3) Estimate own ship movement status
(Estimate direction of movement, speed of movement, rate of turn, wind and
tide)
(1) Types of instruments available for position fixing (compass, radar, GPS,
echo sounder)
(2) Condition of navigational environment (navigation area, available targets
(Affecting
for positioning)
Factors)
(3) Visibility
(4) External disturbances (electromagnetic wave propagation conditions,
weather and sea state)

Lookout Technique for lookout are for detecting stationary targets and moving targets,
(Definition) identifying them, estimating the type, distance, direction, moving speed and
moving direction of objects, and predicting future risks.

(1) Identify present situation

(types of encountering ships, movement of target ships (position, course,
speed))
(Main
(2) Predict future situation
functions)
(movement of target ships (future position, course, speed), changes in the
movement of target ships, estimated risks to own ship (CPA, TCPA, range
from bow or stern))
(1) Navigational instruments
(compass, radar, radar/ARPA, automatic identification system (AIS),
(Affecting vessel traffic information service (VTIS) information))
Factors) (2) Visibility
(3) Marine traffic vessel volume and traffic flow characteristics
(4) Navigational conditions ( in ocean, in fairway and traffic laws)

Table.1 One part of Nine Elemental Techniques

2.2 Elemental Technique “Look out”
In the book, the relation between the functions
of each elemental technique and affecting factors
to achieve the function is discussed based on
research results. Here, one part of description is
optimum avoiding action. However, when first
detection is with a 15 minute TCPA, there is less
time to perform continuous monitoring, and it is
difficult to determine the optimum avoiding action.
40

introduced for understanding the characteristics of 35

y = 29.846e-0.0941x
the book. The technique mentioned here is “Look R2 = 0.2586

time to CPA at detection

30
out”, the definition of this technique and main
25
function and affecting factors are mentioned in the
20
Table.1 in previous section. The contents of
following explanation is to discuss the relation 15

between the function to estimate present and 10

open sea
future situation and the maritime traffic condition. 5
exponential approximate line
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
density of traffic vessel
(1) Factor affecting achievement of lookout
functions Fig.3 Relationship of surrounding ship density
and TCPA at time of first detection on target
One element affecting the lookout range is the
congestion of surrounding ships. When there are
many marine traffic vessels surrounding own ship,
seafarers need to constantly observe the
movements of those vessels. Research has clarified
that the lookout range is concentrated on the
surrounding ships and not a wide area.

Fig. 3 shows the relationship between the

number of other vessels surrounding own ship and
the time of first detection on target ships. Here, the
time of first detection on target is the time until the
closest point of approach of target. This time is
referred to as TCPA (Time to Closest Point of
Approach). The horizontal axis in Fig. 3 shows the
number of surrounding ships, and the area defined
as the surroundings is that indicated in Fig. 4 The
area defined in Fig. 4 is a circle in the vicinity of
own ship indicated by a three mile radius around a Fig.4 Definition of surrounding ship density
point two miles ahead of own ship. The center of
the circle is two miles ahead of own ship, regular
seafarers regular seafarers make sharp look out
for other ships present in the heading direction.
The example in Fig. 4 shows four ships in the
vicinity. According to Fig.3, when there are no
surrounding ships, then an approaching vessel is
first detected with a TCPA of approximately 30
minutes. This means that a ship presenting a
danger is noticed 30 minutes before the CPA. On
the other hand, when there are seven ships in the
vicinity of one’s own ship as defined in Fig. I-2-5,
first detection is delayed until 15 minutes before
closest point of approach. When there is a 30
minute allowance until the closest point of
approach, it is possible to continuously
observation changes in situation after first
detection, give adequate consideration to making
estimates on future situation as shown in the next
section, and then propose and execute the
 Fig. 5 shows the relationship between time of
first detection and the results of maneuvering to
avoid collisions with the target. The horizontal
axis indicates the TCPA when another ship is first
detected, and the vertical axis indicates the
distance at closest point of approach after
performing avoiding action. From the
measurement results shown in Fig. 5, the ships will
approach within 3 cables when first detection at
TCPA is 10 minutes. And thus there will be a
collision under five minutes TCPA. As understood
from this figure, first detection time is a factor in
determining whether collision avoidance
maneuvers will succeed or fail.
y = 0.0568x - 0.1774
CPA [mile]
R² = 0.6088
Detecting time to collision point [min.]
Fig. 5 Relationship of first detection time
and closest approach distance
It is understood that early detection on other
ships is important, and there are factors that
hinder early detection. The tendencies in first
detection shown here are characteristic of regular
behavior of the seafarers. In other words, it is
important to understand the possibility that
normal behavior may produce risks. In this book, I
have shown that visibility and surrounding ships
are factors that may delay first detection. As these
are normal occurrences, I would like to
recommend the importance of first detection being
as early as possible.
It must be recognized that normal behavior may
lead to changes in lookout range, so a conscious
effort should be made for early detection. For
example, a practice should be made of
periodically expanding the range of radar, and of
searching for long-distance objects with
binoculars.
In the book, standard process for avoiding
collision risks are introduced as following,
(2) Process in lookout from first detection to
action
The key requirements for lookout are, at what
time should be other ships detected, and at what
point should be a risk of collision identified? In
other words, it is not possible to perform safe
avoidance maneuvers if the seafarer cannot detect
the target before specific TCPA or he cannot
recognize the risk before specific TCPA. It is
important issue on the lookout functions that
should be done prior to starting avoiding action.
on an axis showing changes in elapsed time. In
Fig. 6, Td (time at detection) is the TCPA when
target ships are first detected. That is, the time
indicating how many minutes before collision
target is first detected. Tr (time at recognition) is
the TCPA when a collision risk recognized and a
target ship must be avoided. Ta (time at starting
action) is the TCPA when an avoiding action is
started. The point at which TCPA is 0 indicates
the time when a collision will occur if avoiding
action is not taken. The Ta timing corresponds to
the time required for avoiding action. The time
required to perform the avoiding action needed to
ensure a safe separation distance. The necessary
time differs depending on the condition of the
encounter and own ship maneuverability. However,
the time from first detection to the start of
avoiding action, in other words the time from Td to
Ta, is the time required to collect and process
lookout information. And this is basically
unrelated to encounter condition and the
maneuverability.
TCPA
TD TR TA 0
TD :First detection of target ship
TR :Recognition of collision risk
TD ~TA :Determination of avoiding action
TA :Start of avoiding action
0 :Collision time
Fig.6 Changes over time in lookout actions
to avoid collision
 According to the results of an international joint
study by the International Marine Simulator
Forum (IMSF) conducted between 2003 and 2006,
the time from Td to Ta is reported to be
approximately 15 minutes. Consequently, the
TCPA at first detection is determined by adding
this to the time Ta required for avoiding action. In
other words, first detection of target presenting
risks needs to be done with the following timing.
(TCPA at first detection)
=(time required for avoiding action) + 15 minutes.
The time Ta required for avoiding action is
determined by a variety of conditions.
The time Ta required for avoiding action may be
measured against an average value of
approximately 10 minutes. Consequently, the time
of first detection on target may be based upon 25
minutes prior to closest point of approach.
Then, following boxed issues is mentioned as the
important points,

Functions Achieved by Lookout Technique

Functions that must be achieved by technique for lookout

1. Understand current conditions in which a ship is placed according to the
following information
① Early detection of other ships
② Types of other ships encountered
③ Movements of other ships encountered (position, course, speed)
2. Understand conditions ship will encounter in future according to the following
information
① Future conditions of other ships encountered (future position, future course,
future speed)
② Ship-to-ship risks (CPA, TCPA, BCR)

2.3 Elemental Technique “Management”

In the book, necessary functions of every inexperience seafarers shown are introduced. On
elemental technique are explained to be satisfied. the technique of Management, basic function and
And adding to the basic functions, the behavior of insufficient tendency inexperience seafarers show
insufficient achievement of functions that are described as following in boxed issues,

Functions Achieved by Techniques for Management

The targets of management in this book are team of people and techniques. The necessary techniques
for managing team of people are described in Part II, Bridge Team Management. Here, are the essential
points for management on technique.

Functions that must be achieved by technique for managing techniques

1. Select techniques that must be applied
2. Select concrete functions of the techniques to be performed
3. Determine frequency and timing to perform techniques
4. Determine priority when need to apply multiple techniques
 Improving Competency of Inexperienced Seafarer
Functions Achieved by Techniques for Management

Functions that must be achieved by technique for management

An example of insufficient competency seen in inexperienced seafarer is
competency in management on techniques. Competency in management on
techniques requires the following.
1． Proper selection and timely performance of techniques: knowing when and how
to perform techniques in navigational situations requiring multiple techniques.
2． When multiple elemental techniques are required at the same time, determining
the importance of the functions that can be achieved by performing a
technique, and deciding the order of performing them.
Management on techniques cannot be achieved without fully understanding the
function of each element technique and how to perform it. Consequently, firstly, the
competency in each of the elemental techniques illustrated in this chapter must be
improved.

3. BRIDGE TEAM MANAGEMENT

In the chapter Bridge Team Management, Bridge Team.

following issues are described,
1.Meaning of organizing bridge Team
2.Objectives of organizing Bridge Team
3.Necessary techniques for achieving
management on Bridge team
Author picks up the following section to
understand the meaning of organizing bridge team.
3.1 Meaning of Bridge Team in Ensuring Safe
The purpose of organizing a Bridge Team is to
ensure the safety of navigation, and the basis of
this may be explained in terms of the relationship
between environmental conditions and navigation
competency. Fig. 7 shows relationship.
Comparison of alone on duty and bridge team
operation
Bridge Team
C
average competency
μ'H
Seafarer competency

Single watch
Navigation μH
A B
average competency

F'
In the previous section, it was shown that the Congested
condition for ensuring safe ship navigation is Open
Sea
water area

decided based on the relationship between μE

navigational environment conditions and seafarer Competency required by navigational environment

competencies. In recent years, it has been widely

accepted that bridge teams in which plural
seafarers are engaged in navigation must achieve Fig. 7 Meaning of Bridge Team from viewpoint
necessary functions effectively in order to ensure of necessary condition for safe
safety. Thus, it has been pointed out that in order navigation
for bridge teams to achieve functions effectively,
Bridge Team Management and Bridge Resource
Management must also achieve functions
effectively. Therefore, from the viewpoint of
ensuring safety, we shall discuss the role of the
 In Fig. 7, the situation at A indicates navigating
by single watch on the open sea. The vertical axis
indicates the seafarer competency. A denotes the
average competency level demonstrated by a
single seafarer. The horizontal axis indicates
required competency by navigational condition. A
denotes the required competency by the
environmental conditions during navigation on the
open sea where there are few restrictions in the
navigation area or ships to encounter. In the
situation at A, a competency level corresponding
to the difficulty level of navigation on the open sea
is required. In this case, single seafarer
competency exceeds the competency required by
the environment. Thus, even a single seafarer can
ensure safety in ship navigation.
Next, we shall discuss when a ship advances into
narrow waters congested by ships. The
competency required by the environment increases,
so the situation in Fig. 7 shifts to the right of point
A. This means a shift from point A to point B since
the average competency achievable by a single
seafarer is µH. Thus, the situation moves under
the 45 degree limit line, and naturally safe
navigation cannot be ensured. In such cases, the
ship captain organizes a bridge team so plural
seafarers can show higher competency than single
watch condition. In the figure, the value on the
vertical axis indicated by C indicates that the
average competency level achievable by the
bridge team is µ’H. A high level of competency
can be achieved by the bridge team, so the
situation in Fig. 7 shifts to point C above the 45
degree limit line, and safe navigation is realized.
The contribution of this change in this situation is
the basis for organizing bridge team activity.
However, based on the results of analyzing marine
accidents during bridge team navigation, there are
occasions that have been indicated as reasons for
ineffective bridge team function that has led to
accidents. The exact reasons for bridge teams not
functioning effectively will be discussed later, but
it may be concluded that the competency level µ’H
originally expected from bridge teams is
sometimes not realized. Namely, the competency
level demonstrated by bridge teams occasionally
falls below point C. When past accidents are
analyzed, cases are seen in which it may be
assumed that bridge team functions at the time of
accidents were less than the competency level by
single watch. This situation is indicated by point F
in Fig. 7. The purpose of Bridge Team
Management is to maintain the expected level µ’H,
and maintain the conditions at point C. What steps
are required to maintain expected bridge team
functions? This challenge is the subject of “Bridge
Team Management.” This is described in detail
from next chapter onwards.

Necessary Conditions for Safe Navigation and Bridge Team

The following conditions must be understood to achieve safe navigation.

1． The achievable competency of seafarers and the competency required by
environment in order to achieve safe navigation are related.
2． The achievable competency of seafarers must be the same as or better than the
competency required by environment in order to ensure safe ship navigation.
3． A Bridge Team must be organized when safety cannot be ensured by single
seafarer competency.
4． The purpose of organizing a Bridge Team is that all team members realize a
high level of competency as a team.
 The end of section “proposal on the concept of Bridge Team Management”, following boxed issue is
pointed out
Bridge Team Management

The following items are learned from the background and examples of the Bridge
Team Management idea.
1． Management includes two ideas: Bridge Team Management (BTM) and Bridge
Resource Management (BRM).
2． BRM consists of the functions that must be fulfilled by the team leader in the
concept of BTM. Consequently, BRM is considered part of BTM.
3． When examples of past accidents are analyzed, it is found that inadequate
action by members of teams puts the team at risk.
4． All of team members have functions to achieve in order to realize full of team
activities.

After the meaning and objectives of organizing Bridge Team are discussed, following boxed issue on
necessary functions of team activity is pointed out.

Necessary Functions of Teamwork

In order to attain the purpose of organizing bridge team by plural seafarers,

team members must achieve the following functions.
1． The team leader must achieve the function of motivating the team so it
can achieve its purpose.
2． Team members must effectively communicate.
3． Team members must maintain cooperation in order to maintain smooth
team activity.
4． Team members must properly perform the work assigned to them.
5． Team leader must achieve items 2 to 4 above as members of the team.
Team members must also follow the intentions of the team leader.

Function on Communication and Cooperation are indicated as indispensable function for team activities.
After express the detail explanation on both function in “Section 4-4, Communication” and “Section 4-5,
Cooperation”, following boxed issues are pointed out.

Significance of Communication

The following functions are possible through proper communication.

1． Sharing of results done by each team member, summarizing of obtained
information, and determination of a teamwork plan.
2． Sharing of a sense of purpose by team members.
3． Detection of human error team member makes and breaking of the human error
chain.
 Significance of Cooperation

The following functions can be achieved through cooperation.

1． Maintenance of continuity in work performed by each team member and
smooth teamwork.
2． Substitute or supplementary work for other team members.
3． Monitoring of actions by other team members and detection of human error

In “Section 4-6 Functions of Team Leaders”, necessary functions of team leader are explained and
following boxed issue is pointed out at the end of the section.

Functions of Team Leaders

1． The team leader must clearly notify all team members of the purpose to be
achieved by the team, and present the specific actions necessary to achieve the
purpose.
2． The team leader must evaluate the competency of team members, and provide
clear instructions of the duties and specifics of work to all constituent members.
3． The team leader constantly monitors the actions of team members, and
motivates the team to maintain constant optimum activity.
4． The team leader is also a member of the team, and thus must make good
communication in order that team members can understand the situation the
team faces, and achieve cooperation in order to smoothly proceed with
teamwork.

The function of communication between team member including team leader is very important function.
In “section: Methods of Communication”, the methods are explained and summarize the key point in
following boxed issue.

Methods of Communication

The following points should be considered when communicating with team

members.
1． Clear awareness of the purpose of communication.
2． Classify the information and items to be communicated.
3． Select the time for communication.
4． Decide on the order of information to be communicated.
5． Decide on the frequency of communication.
Especially, “Communication for Lookout Duties” and “Communication for Ship Position Fixing Duties
“ are important functions for team member. The necessary methods of communication are explained based
on the objectives of both elemental techniques in the each section and summarized key points as
following,

Methods of Communication for Lookout Duties

In lookout duties for collision avoidance, reporting items change at each of the
following steps, so reporting must be done accordingly.
1. When discovering ships with risk of collision
2. During continuous monitoring of ships with risk of collision
3. Right before starting avoiding action
4. During avoiding action
5. At the end of avoiding action

Method of Communication for Ship Position Fixing

In ship position fixing duties, reporting items change according to the following
navigational conditions, so reporting must be done accordingly.
1． When navigating a straight planned course line
2． When navigating on a planned course line including course changes
3． When navigating towards a destination with a fixed arrival time

CONCLUSION

Author summarized the results of research work

on the techniques of ship handling and team
management that have been carried out for over
twenty years. The knowledge based on above
mentioned studies are pointed out as the important
issues by the people in the maritime field. So,
author published the book involving the necessary
knowledge mentioned above. This is the first study
to systematize all of necessary techniques for safe
navigation and to clarify the logical concept of
team activities. English version of the book will be
published shortly, so author hope the people read it
to understand the issues in this paper exactly.
 INNOVATIVE FAST TIME SIMULATION TOOLS FOR BRIEFING /
DEBRIEFING IN ADVANCED SHIP HANDLING SIMULATOR TRAINING
AT AIDA CRUISES ROSTOCK

Knud Benedict, Michael Gluch, Matthias Kirchhoff, Sandro Fischer, Michèle Schaub
Hochschule Wismar, University of Applied Sciences - Technology, Business and Design, Dept. of Maritime
Studies Warnemuende & Maritime Simulation Centre Warnemuende, Institute ISSIMS / Germany,
knud.benedict@hs-wismar.de

Michael Baldauf, World Maritime University WMU, Malmoe / Sweden, mbf@wmu.se

Capt. Burkhard Müller, Capt. Marko Purwin: AIDA Cruises Rostock, Germany, Burkhard.Mueller@aida.de

ABSTRACT:
The innovative FTS based system for “Simulation-Augmented Manoeuvring Design, Monitoring & Control”
(SAMMON) has been developed in the Institute for Innovative Ship Simulation and Maritime Systems (ISSIMS),
working at the Maritime Simulation Centre Warnemuende MSCW. The system consists of software modules for (a)
Manoeuvring Design & Planning, (b) Monitoring & Control based on Multiple Dynamic Prediction and (c) Trial &
Training. It is based on complex ship dynamic models for simulating rudder, thruster or engine manoeuvres under
different environmental conditions.
Since INSLC 18 in 2014 [7] it is proven that it is an effective tool for lecturing and demonstration of ships motion
characteristic as well as for training in ship handling simulators. The advantage is that the trainee can immediately see
the results of the actual rudder, engine or thruster commands and he does not have to wait for the real time response of
the vessel. Experiences have been made how this new technology can be used to improve the simulator training in the
Advanced Ship Handling Training course at the Maritime Simulation Centre of AIDA Cruises in Rostock / Germany.
Samples of application for briefing / debriefing and specifically introduction lectures for simulator exercises will be
shown in the paper.

1 INTRODUCTION – DESCRIPTION OF THE CONCEPT FOR USING FAST TIME SIMULATION

1.1 NEED FOR FAST TIME SIMULATION AND SIMULATION SUPPORT
Manoeuvring of ships is and will be a human centred process despite of expected further technological developments.
Most important elements of this process are the human itself and the technical equipment to support its task. However,
most of the work is to be done manually because even today nearly no automation support is available for complex
manoeuvres. Up to now there is no electronic tool to demonstrate manoeuvring characteristics efficiently or moreover to
design a manoeuvring plan effectively - even in briefing procedures for ship handling training the potential manoeuvres
will be “guessed” and drafted on paper or described by sketches and short explanations.
However, due to the new demands there is a need to prepare harbour approaches with complete berth plans specifically
in companies with high safety standards like cruise liners. These plans are necessary to agree on a concept within the
bridge team and also for the discussion and briefing with the pilot. The plan for the potential manoeuvres must be
developed– but still in a contemplative way by thinking ahead – only drafted on paper or described by self-made sketches
and short explanations. The plans are made by hand on paper charts or on a printout of electronic chart interface – by now
there is no tool available to provide support for manoeuvring planning yet.
Ship Handling Simulation for simulator training has a proven high effect for the qualification. However, it is based on
real time simulation, and i.e. 1 sec calculation time by the computers represents 1 sec manoeuvring time as in real world.
This means despite all other advantages of full mission ship handling simulation that collecting/gathering of manoeuvring
experiences remains an utmost time consuming process. For instance, a training session for a berthing manoeuvre might
take one hour – if the first attempt failed or an alternative strategy should be tried then the next session needs another
hour – this is not very effective.
For increasing the effectiveness of training and also the safety and efficiency for manoeuvring real ships the method of
Fast Time Simulation will be used in future – Even with standard computers it can be achieved to simulate in 1 second
computing time a manoeuvre lasting about to 20 min using innovative simulation methods. These Fast Time Simulation
tools were initiated in research activities of the Institute for Innovative Ship Simulation and Maritime System ISSIMS at
the Maritime Simulation Centre Warnemuende, which is a part of the Department of Maritime Studies of Hochschule
Wismar, University of Applied Sciences - Technology, Business & Design in Germany. They have been further developed
by the start-up company Innovative Ship Simulation and Maritime Systems (ISSIMS GmbH [6]).
1.2 OVERVIEW ON THE SOFTWARE MODULES FOR FAST TIME SIMULATION
A brief overview is given for the modules of the FTS tools and its potential application:
• SAMMON is the brand name of the innovative system for “Simulation Augmented Manoeuvring – Design,
Monitoring & Conning”, consisting of four software modules for Manoeuvring Design & Planning, Monitoring &
Conning with Multiple Dynamic Prediction and for Simulation & Trial. There are the following modules:
o Manoeuvring Design & Planning Module: Design of Ships Manoeuvring Concepts as “Manoeuvring Plan” for
Harbour Approach and Berthing Manoeuvres (steered by virtual handles on screen by the mariner)
o Manoeuvring Monitoring & Conning Module with Multiple Dynamic Manoeuvring Prediction: Monitoring of
Ships Manoeuvres during Simulator Exercises or Manoeuvres on a Real Ship using bridges handles, Display of
Manoeuvring Plan and Predicted Manoeuvres in parallel; Calculation of various prediction tracks for full ships
dynamic Simulation and Simplified Path prediction as Look Ahead for the future ships motion.
o Manoeuvring Simulation Trial & Training Module: Ship Handling Simulation on Laptop Display to check and
train the manoeuvring concept (providing the same functions as Monitoring tool; steered by virtual handles on
screen)
These modules are made for both:
o application in maritime education and training to support lecturing for ship handling to demonstrate and explain
more easily manoeuvring technology details and to prepare more specifically manoeuvring training in SHS
environment, i.e. for developing manoeuvring plans in briefing sessions, to support manoeuvring during the
exercise run and to help in debriefing sessions the analysis of replays and discussions of quick demonstration of
alternative manoeuvres and
o application on-board to assist manoeuvring of real ships e.g. to prepare manoeuvring plans for challenging harbour
approaches with complex manoeuvres up to the final berthing / unberthing of ships, to assist the steering by
multiple prediction during the manoeuvring process and even to give support for analysing the result and for on
board training with the Simulation & Trial module.
• SIMOPT is a Simulation Optimiser software module based on FTS for optimising Standard Manoeuvres and
modifying ship math model parameters both for simulator ships and FTS Simulation Training Systems and for on
board application of the SAMMON System.
• SIMDAT is a software module for analysing simulation results both from simulations in SHS or SIMOPT and from
real ship trials: the data for manoeuvring characteristics can be automatically retrieved and comfortable graphic tools
are available for displaying, comparing and assessing the results.
The SIMOPT and SIMDAT modules were described in earlier papers ([1] for tuning of simulator ship model parameters
and also the modules for Multiple Dynamic Prediction & Control [2] for the on board use as steering assistance tool. In
this paper, the focus will be laid on the potential of the SAMMON software for supporting the lecturing and briefing /
debriefing process with elements specifically for simulator training for Advanced Ship Handling in the Maritime
Simulation & Training Centre MSTC of the AIDA Cruises Company at Rostock / Germany.

2 USE OF FAST TIME SIMULATION FOR LECTURING AND FAMILIARISATION

2.1 STOPPING CHARACTERISTICS: RESULT DIAGRAM AND ITS APPLICATION FOR USING THE
SPEED VECTOR AS STOPPING DISTANCE INDICATOR
One of the elements during the lectures in simulator training courses is the familiarisation with the ship manoeuvring
characteristics and its effective application – and Fast Time Simulation is a very smart tool to do this in a short time and
with high success. The following sample addresses the ships stopping capability. Specifically for the samples in this
paper the cruise ship “AIDAblu” is used; this ship has the following dimensions: length Lpp= 244.6m , beam B=32.2m
draft T= 7.00 m. she has two pitch propellers and two rudders, two thrusters each at the bow and at the stern.
To get an overview about the ships stopping distances from several speeds and with various astern power, some test
trails could be done either with the Design & Planning tool (Fig. 1) or with the SIMOPT and SIMDAT program (Fig.
2).
By means of the Planning tool (Fig. 1) the ship can be set in the ENC window on an initial position MP 0 where the
initial speed can be adjusted using the handles in the right window. Then the ships is moved by the slider at the bottom
of the ENC window, e.g. to a position after 1 min and there the MP 1 is set. Then we use the handles to reverse the
engine to EOT=-100% and we see immediately the stopping position on the ENC window.
For application of this stopping behaviour during the voyage or in ports, it is helpful to visualise the stopping distances
in the ECDIS or RADAR. The SAMMON Monitoring tool allows for superimposition of the ships track as result of a
change of the EOT handle position after 1 second (fig: Monitoring tool stopping full astern ships predicted track from
FULL ASTERN ). As long as such a sophisticated dynamic prediction tool is not available on the bridge yet, it is helpful
to use the speed vector as alternative.
Fig. 1 Display of the Manoeuvring Design & Planning Module: Two stopping manoeuvres for AIDAblu from
different speed rates to Full Astern (EOT=-100%):
• Top: Crash stop from Full Ahead (EOT=+100% for 22, 2 kn) at MP1
• Bottom: Stopping manoeuvre from Half Ahead (EOT=+53% for 12.6kn) at MP1
Fig. 2 Results of SIMOPT program for series of stopping manoeuvres for cruise ship AIDAblu (Computing time
17 sec):
• Top: Result table for from several Ahead speed rates from EOT = 10 to 100 % and two Astern power variants
with EOT= – 100% and -30% (SIMDAT)
• Bottom: Stopping diagram for distances (solid lines) and respective times for speed vector length (dotted lines)

The basic idea is to adjust the speed vectors’ length to the stopping distance: The required speed vector length can be
easily calculated from the well-known relation speed = distance /time, which can be changed to time = distance / speed.
From this equation, we can calculate the Vector time and this is
tvector=Stopping distance / Starting speed,
e.g. the Crash Stop Stopping Distance 1600m from starting speed 22 kn (12 m/s) gives:
tvector= 1600 m / 12m/s =138 s = 2:18 min.
If we do these calculations for all stopping distances of the solid lines in Fig. 2 we get the dotted graphs. The re result is
that for all crash stop manoeuvres (blue line) with Full Astern the vector time is close to two minutes (blue dotted line);
this is to be seen in Fig. 3 where the ship stops close to the end of the 2 min speed vector. Therefor the conclusion might
be: Setting the speed vector for tvector = 3 min would give some extra safety distance reserve and would even allow to
stop the ship with Astern power of EOT= -30% only!
Fig. 3 Display of the SAMMON Trail & Training Module with stopping manoeuvres for AIDAblu from Slow
Ahead (8.3 kn) to Full Astern (EOT=-100%): Comparison of dynamic prediction (black dotted shapes, starting
from solid contour) and the speed vector (magenta dotted line) set to 2 min.

2.2 EFFECT OF RUDDERS AND THRUSTERS ON SWEPT PATH AND PIVOT POINT
For many situation specifically in narrow fairway and limited space the manoeuvring space and the swept path is of
utmost importance. In Fig. 4 it is shown that the swept path for turning manoeuvres with rudder is much bigger than for
thruster manoeuvres.

Fig. 4 Comparison of ships path during turning of ship with rudders or thrusters with SAMMON Design &
Planning tool in forward motion EOT=+20% Ahead:
• Left: Turning with Rudder STB 15°, Thruster 0%
• Right: Turning with bow-Thruster 100% STB, Rudder 0°

In Fig. 5 the development of a turning circle is shown to discuss the acting forces and moments to understand the
motion characteristics.
If the turning is generated by means of rudder, it is producing a lift force like a wing of an airplane but in the horizontal
plane: the force is pointing outward to port side. Then a drift angle ß sets in and now the ship hull acts as a “wing” with
lift force to starboard at the fore part of the ship; this force is creating a so called “unstable moment” which tries to
increase the drift angle. When therefore the turning motion r develops, it causes centrifugal forces acting on the centre
of gravity of ships and hydrodynamic masses. Due to the rotation a damping force sets in, acting like a “curved profile”
and producing a moment in contrary direction to balance the unstable moment in the circular motion. It is a similar
effect as “counter rudder” to counteract the initial rudder moment plus the unstable moment until an equilibrium is
found in steady state turning on a circle.

The development of the Turning Circle Manoeuvre ends up in Steady State Conditions with an equilibrium in balancing
the Transverse Forces and Moments.
If the ship starts turning with a bow thruster, then a drift angle does not occur – it is not required (or even becomes
negative in case the thruster is to powerful!) to shift the ship “inward” from initial course because thruster force is
pointing inward.

x Y
0 Centrifugal
Y(δ)

N(ß)

Y(ß)
Y(r) Equilibrium of
V N(r)
Transverse Forces in
ß steady state condition
N(δ)

Equilibrium of Moments in steady

state condition
Y(δ) Y(ß)

y
0

Y(δ)

x Y
0 Z

V
ß=0
N(Thr)
V
Y(r) Y(Thr)
N(r)
Equilibrium of
Transverse Forces in
ß=0 Y(Thr) steady state condition

Equilibrium of
Moments in steady state
condition

Y(Thr)
y
0

Fig. 5 Comparison of Turning Circle Development and Acting Transverse Forces & Moments up to Equilibrium
condition: due to rudder action (top) and due to thruster action (below)
The drift angle and the rate of turn have an impact on the position of the pivot point (PP). In Fig. 6 the inflow speed due
to drift and turning motion is shown together with the forces being created when the ship is moving forward: the PP is
located where the crossflow speed (or the ships transverse motion respectively) is zero.

Cross flow + Cross flow by = Cross flow by

by drift turning motion combined motion

v(β)=V·sinβ v(β, r ,x,…)=V· sinβ − x·r

v(r)=-x·r

u(β)=-V·cosβ Pivot point,

where
β
crossflow
Y(β) speed = Zero
+
=
N(r)
Damping-
N(β) Moment
(unstable
Y(r)
Moment)

Fig. 6 Crossflow due to drift and turning motion and respective Hull Forces and Pivot Point (top) and principle of
lift force development (below)for a straight profile (left)and effect of turning as “curved profile” (right)

Where is its position and which effects are driving the PP position? In Fig. 7 some examples are shown for turning
manoeuvres in ahead and astern motion and with rudder or thrusters. The following conclusions can be drawn:Fig. 6
• PP position is flexible and depends directly on ships motion, i.e. the ratio between drift and turning. E.g. for turning
circle its position is starting at mid ship for beginning of turn and moves forward when the drift sets in; it remains in
the fore part, on average 1/3 ship length behind the bow for rudder manoeuvres and aft for bow thruster manoeuvres.
• Under wind impact there might already be a wind drift additionally to the drift due to the rudder effect during turning,
e.g. for turning under wind: the pivot point is far ahead when the turning starts in comparison to the turning without
wind
• Because its position changes, therefore the PP is not suitable as reference point for discussion of acting forces –
better use the Centre of Gravity for understanding dynamic effects!
• For small drift angles, the PP is at mid ships and therefor only minimum manoeuvring space is required,
specifically as minimum swept path.
Fig. 7 Comparison of ships path and location of pivot point (left) and sample of swept path (right) during turning
of ship with rudders or thrusters with SIMOPT & SIMDAT:
a) forward motion Engine Ahead EOT=+20% b) astern motion with Engine Astern EOT=-20%
• Blue: Rudder 20°STB, no Thruster • Red: Rudder 20° STB
• Green: Bow Thruster 100% STB • Brown: Stern Thruster 100% STB
• Grey: Bow Thruster -100% PT

2.3 WIND EFFECT – RUDDER AND DRIFT ANGEL FOR BALANCE ON STRAIGHT TRACK
Another important issue is the behaviour of the vessel under wind impact that can be easily explained and investigated
by means of the SAMMON System. For an introduction, it is show in Fig. 8 what rudder and drift angle are required to
steer the ship under beam wind - within the SAMMON Planning module the initial heading and course can be adjusted
in the top right window to get the ships track between the fairway buys. For developing a mental model for the
understanding of the wind effect, it is helpful to have an overview what rudder and drift angle are generally needed for
different wind conditions and ships speeds. In the planning module this can be investigated in trying out several wind
encounters and wind to ships speed. This can be done as a trainee group exercise and the results are collected and entered
into a diagram as in Fig. 9. In this diagram the rudder angles and drift angles are plotted versus the absolute wind encounter
angel between wind direction and ships course – it is zero for heading against the wind and 180° for stern wind.
Fig. 8 Wind effect on straight motion - Approach to Rostock Port: AIDAblu enters the fairway under wind speed
30 kn from 60°. With EOT 26% (equivalent to 5.2 kn ships speed) she needs 9° PT rudder and drift angle ca. 22°

For the basic understanding of this effect, the equilibrium conditions under wind impact on a straight track with constant
ship speed should be analysed in detail. Generally, the wind impact depends on the following parameters and ratios:
• Ratio of the areas above and below waterline, e.g. Cruise ships: lateral areas 8000m² and 1600², i.e. ratio 5! (for
Container vessels this is about 1.2 only)
• Ratio of relative wind speed VR² to ship’s speed V²
• α - Wind angle of attack, depending on wind direction, heading and speed of the vessel
• Ship’s form:
o underwater hull form (CB, trim, draught) and
o shape of above water area with superstructure and different cargo / loading conditions e.g. containers.
For given ship conditions the wind impact changes with the encounter angle and the speed ratio VR² /V². For simplification
and for better use of the data for route planning the absolute wind speed VA and the constant speed V0 of the ship for a
given EOT without wind will be used together with the absolute wind encounter angle (instead of the relative wind and
encounter angle). In Fig. 9 it can be seen that the ship has a leeward turning tendency for wind from the bow to beam
wind and a windward turning tendency for wind from the stern quarter. The maximum rudder angle is needed for an
encounter angle of about 135°. For the wind speed 30 kn the required rudder angle would even exceed the maximum
rudder angle of 35° because the turning moments due to wind and the unstable moment due to the drift angle point in the
same direction – the ship could not be steered at this low speed. Such a diagram as in Fig. 9 is the basis for understanding
the wind effect and for estimating the required rudder and drift angle beforehand. To simplify the data collection (which
is also recommended for the real ship) it is very helpful if you create a “reference graph” form the collected data that can
be used for “All” wind and ship speed ratios and not only for the conditions during the measurements in the following
way. Dividing all rudder δ and drift ß data by VA²/V0², we get the reference rudder and drift angle:

* δ * ß
δ = ß =
VA VA
( Vo )² ( Vo )²

In the right diagram, it is to be seen that all respective reference drift and rudder angle are nearly on one graph each. This
is good to know because then all measurements can be better checked and it is helpful for the planning. A sample
calculation will be shown for the conditions in Fig. 8 for required drift and rudder angle from Reference Rudder and drift
angles: in the Fig. 9 we get for course 161° and wind angle 61° the absolute wind encounter angle 100° - from the diagram
Fig. 9 we estimate at the red dotted line at 100°: δ*=-0.25 and ß*=0.6. And finally with the wind speed VA=30 kn, and
the ship speed V0=5kn, i.e. ratio VA/V0=6.0, we get the required angles:

2
𝑉𝑉
Required rudder angle: 𝛿𝛿 = 𝛿𝛿 ∗ ∙ � 𝐴𝐴�𝑉𝑉 � = −0.25 ∙ (6.0)2 = −9°
0

2
𝑉𝑉
Required drift angle: 𝛽𝛽 = 𝛽𝛽 ∗ ∙ � 𝐴𝐴�𝑉𝑉 � = 0.6 ∙ (6.0)2 = 21.6°
0

These results are in good coincidence with the drift and rudder angles in Fig. 8.

Fig. 9 Balance of wind effects on straight track with constant speed - Equilibrium parameters rudder and drift
angle versus absolute wind encounter angle for wind speed of 20 kn and 30 kn (EOT 30%, according to ship speed
6.2.kn)
• Left: results of simulation for rudder and drift angle in degree for two wind speeds of 20 kn, and 30 kn
• Right: same data as reference rudder and drift angle related to VA²/V0² with sample for wind encounter angle
of 100°
3 USE OF FAST TIME SIMULATION FOR SIMULATOR BRIEFING
3.1 TASK DESCRIPTION – INTRODUCTION, CONVENTIONAL BRIEFING AND NEW CONCEPT
During the exercise briefing, the navigational officer is introduced into the harbour area, the starting situation and the
environmental conditions within this area on a conventional sea chart to be seen in Fig. 10. The objective is to bring the
ship through the fairway channel of Rostock Port from North, to turn the ships and heading back through the channel to
berth the ship with Port Side at the Passenger Piera.

Final position: Passenger

berth, alongside PS: 

Section 3: return
track & approach
to the berth
MV „AIDAblu“ at starting position:
STW: around 6 kn; HDG: 161°

Section 1:
approach to turning area

Section 2
Turning area

Fig. 10 Exercise area and environmental conditions in Port of Rostock for berthing scenario, divided into two
sections for planning the manoeuvres and completed by guessing for desired positions as ship shapes only
The respective harbour area is divided into manoeuvring sections, which are following a specific aim:
1. Section 1: the ship speed should be reduced until she is ready to be turned, SOG should be around 3 kn to be
prepared for section 2.
2. Section 2: the ship should be turned and adjusted to go back in the fairway on opposite course to the final berth.
3. Section 32: the ship should be stopped and berthed.
In the conventional briefing, only these rough indications of the manoeuvring status can be used to develop a potential
strategy for berthing the ship. In conventional berth plans only ship contours are used to be positioned in drawings with
WORD or POWER POINT - The specific manoeuvres and settings of engine rudder and thrusters cannot be discussed
in detail because specific manoeuvring characteristics can hardly be used for the specific situations. And real time
simulation is too time consuming…
The fast time simulation allows for new methods for individual exercise preparation with self-developed manoeuvring
concepts:
• Drafting Manoeuvring Concept in more detail as Manoeuvring Plan with the Design and Planning tool;
• Optimisation of the concept by several planning trials with that tool,
• Pre-Training with Trial and Training Tool to try out the concept with real time simulation on a laptop
3.2 BRIEFING BY MEANS OF THE „MANOEUVRE PLANNING & DESIGN MODULE“

3.2.1 Basic exercise with no wind and current

With the new fast time Simulation there is the chance for designing a Manoeuvre Plan as a detailed strategy with the
specific settings at distinguished positions called the Manoeuvring Points MP. Some basic functions and interface
displays for the Fast Time Simulation within the Design and Planning Tool are shown in the next figures. Fig. 11
explains the method in a sea chart environment represented by an interface which combines the electronic navigational
chart ENC window (centre), the interface window for the steering panel of the ship (right) for adjusting the controls for
the selected manoeuvring point MP and the interface to display the status of the current actual ship manoeuvring
controls (left) at the position of the next manoeuvring point MP which is indicated as ship shape in red colour in the
ENC.

In the following, the course of actions is described in a series of figures to make a full manoeuvring plan by means of
the control actions at the manoeuvring points MP – this will be done first for easy conditions with no wind and current
to explain the procedure of fast time planning:
In Fig. 11 the initial position MP 0 is to be seen where the instructor has set the ship in the centre of the fairway. The
ships has already been moved by the slider at the ENC bottom to set the next manoeuvring point MP 1: there the
stopping manoeuvres is started with EOT -30%. The prediction already shows that the ship would lose speed according
to the handle positions.
In Fig. 12 the ship is nearly stopped and turns by means of the thrusters – the contour is shifted to a position where the
thrusters are stopped and the engines speed up to return to the fairway with opposite course.
In Fig. 13 the vessel is brought close to the berth and at MP5 the engines are reversed to reduce speed and to stop the
ships at a position parallel to the berth to be shifted by thrusters to the pier from the next MP 6. Afterwards the plan needs
a further MP in order to reduce the transversal speed shortly before berthing.

Fig. 11 Fast time planning in sea chart: Initial ship position at MP0 and prediction for the stopping manoeuvre at
MP 1: The prediction already shows that the ship reduces speed to the set handle positions.
Fig. 12 Ship position at MP2 and prediction for the turning manoeuvre: The prediction shows that the ship is
turning due to the set handle positions of Bow and Stern Thrusters with 80%.

Fig. 13 Final part of the manoeuvring plan: The vessel is brought into a position parallel to the berth to be shifted
by thrusters to the pier from the next MP 6

3.2.2 Advanced exercise with strong wind

The full potential of the fast time simulation can be seen for challenging weather conditions. In Fig. 14 the scenario is
now to be solved for 25 kn wind from 61°. The initial position is the same as in the previous example but the first task for
the trainee is to find the balance condition in the fairway: after some attempts, a drift angle of about 16° and rudder angle
3° was adjusted and the ship contour was shifted to the buys at the entrance of the fairway.
The next manoeuvring segment is for stopping and turning in Fig. 15:
On the left side it can be seen, that in case the ship would be plainly stopped here as in the previous exercise she would
heavily drifting with the wind. Therefore, the engines are split to support the turning by the STB engine while the PT
engine goes astern.
In the final part of the manoeuvre, the crucial segments are difficult because of the strong wind on the return track on
opposite course: in Fig. 16 the ship enters the fairway now from south and because of the strong wind from the bow there
is a need to adjust heading, course and rudder. It is advantageous to split the engines because the rudder is more effective
when one engine goes with more power. In addition, the ship is better prepared to stop because one engine is already
going astern and does not need additional reversing time. On the right side of the figure, the stopping manoeuvre is to
bring the ship into a position parallel to the berth. In Fig. 17 the thrusters and rudders are used with full power to
counteract the wind effect for the final berthing, the approaching speed of the drift motion towards the pier is below 0.8
kn (for 30 kn it would be over 1.5 kn).

Fig. 14 Fast time planning in sea chart under wind 25 kn from 61°: Initial ship position at MP0 and prediction for
future track under drift angle

Fig. 15 Ship position at MP2 and prediction for the turning manoeuvre with two strategies:
• Left: turning only with thrusters (same concept as without wind in Fig. 12)
• Right: more powerful solution with split engines and rudder support
Fig. 16 Continuing the manoeuvring plan on the return track on opposite course:
Left: the ship enters the fairway now from south and adjust heading, course and rudder with split engines
Right: stopping manoeuvre to bring the ship into a position parallel to the berth

Fig. 17 Complete manoeuvring plan with final berthing manoeuvre

3.3 BRIEFING BY MEANS OF THE „MANOEUVRE TRIAL & TRAINING MODULE“
The Trail & Training Tool is a desktop simulation tool for real time manoeuvring simulation Fig. 16. It has the same
handle panel on the right side as the planning tool). It contains conning information together with the prediction and it
can display the planned manoeuvring track. The centre window shows the ENC together with motion parameter for
longitudinal speed and transverse speed. The ships position is displayed in the centre of the ENC as ship’s contour where
also the track prediction can be indicated as curved track or as chain of contours for the selected prediction time. The
prediction parameters as range or interval of presentation can be set in the control window at the left side.
In Fig. 16 the scenario under wind is shown, the ship is just entering the turning area and starts to turn. The table on top
of the ENC shows the manoeuvre control settings from the planning and the planned track is shown in blue colour..

Fig. 18 SAMMON Trail & Training Tool: Real time simulation and Manoeuvring Prediction integrated into
ECDIS with comparison of full dynamic predictions (dotted ship contours) and the simple static prediction
(magenta curve) together with planned manoeuvring track (blue line) in (same in Monitoring Tool, except the
handle panel))

4 EXECUTION OF EXERCISE AND DEBRIEFING WITH FAST TIME SIMULATION

4.1 USE OF SIMULATION AUGMENTED SUPPORT WITH SAMMON MONITORING TOOL IN SHIP
HANDLING SIMULATOR
There are several ways to support the execution and debriefing by the FTS.
The support during Execution of Exercise is depending on the degree on what the trainee is allowed to use the new
manoeuvring prediction technology during the exercise run.
• On a low level the multiple dynamic prediction may be used to gradually let the student know on his potential options
for using the controls as a means for good visualisation of quality of manoeuvres – this is only to support the learning
process specifically as long as the new technology is not available on the conventional ships
• On the highest level the trainees can make full use of the dynamic prediction and the prepared manoeuvring plan as
underlying concept to achieve the best fit with the plan and the exercise result. The full use of the prediction is
increasing safety & effectiveness even for advanced trainees
• For instructors (and peer students) multiple dynamic predictions are always a great help because the chances for
success of a trainee’s action can immediately be seen or the exercise could be stopped earlier if it is obvious that the
trainee will fail.
In the Debriefing the fast time tools allow for an in-depth assessment of quality of manoeuvring results:
• Assessment of results by comparison with trainees own concept or optimised plan can be shown in the replay function
of the Monitoring Tool which can be used with Multiple Prediction functionality; or more in detail within the
SIMDAT tool where the time history of the trainees action can be shown graphically e.g. for rudder, thruster and
engine activities
• Discussion of alternative manoeuvres at specific selected situations can be supported by the Design & Planning tool
by loading any specific situation during the exercise run and to operate the manoeuvring handles differently.

During the exercise, it is possible to take advantage from the Multiple Prediction for the manoeuvres. In Fig. 19 the setup
is to be seen where the instructor or bring their laptop onto the simulator bridge (where the manoeuvring plan might have
been developed), the prediction is controlled via the bridge handles. The same laptop with the Monitoring tool can also
be placed at the instructor station.

Fig. 19 Using Multiple Prediction in Simulator Training at MSTC of AIDA Cruises Rostock
Left: Portable Setup for Prediction Display in Monitoring Tool on Trainees Laptop on Bridge - the prediction is
controlled by the Bridge Handle via WLAN
Right: Prediction Display in Debriefing session (left screen): The dynamic prediction can be used even during
Fast Replay to complement the simulator instructor display (right screen)

The benefit of using the FTS is to be seen for several purposes:

• The multiple dynamic predictions shown on the instructors screen are always a great help for instructors and maybe
also for peer students looking over their shoulders to learn from the actions of the other trainees in charge on the
bridge. Thea have a better overview on the current situation and the chances for the potential success of a trainee’s
action can immediately be seen; the exercise could be stopped earlier if it is obvious that the trainee will fail.
• multiple dynamic prediction may be used to gradually let the student know on his potential options for using the
controls as a means for good visualisation of quality of manoeuvres – this is to support the learning process
specifically as long as the new technology is not available on the conventional ships.
• if the trainees are allowed to make full use of the dynamic prediction and also the prepared manoeuvring plan as
underlying concept to achieve they achieve best fit with the plan and the exercise result. The full use of the prediction
is increasing safety & effectiveness even for advanced trainees and can support to find out the best performance.

4.2 DEBRIEFING OF EXERCISE AND COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH MANOEUVRING PLAN

Several methods of comparison exist for the debriefing after the training by using FTS software. Whilst in the Ship
Handling Simulator (SHS) there is the possibility to additionally record the training session using the „Monitoring &
Manoeuvring Module“, there’s a correspondent option to save the training and planning procedure in the „Trial &
Training“ as well as in the „Manoeuvre Design & Planning Modules“. All of the files from the planning and from the
execution can be shown together in form of the ship track as well as in diagrams from several parameters over the whole
manoeuvring time in the SIMDAT program. The following figures show some possible methods to display the results:

In Fig. 20 a comparison is made between the two simulator results of the trainees with different level of preparation and
the manoeuvring plan of the second trainee. The achievements of the better prepared trainee are obvious – the planned
manoeuvre is very close to the executed track and the actions of the controls has been done also nearly in accordance with
the planned procedures. It is obvious that there is not just a reduction of manoeuvring time when applying the Fast Time
Simulation tool in briefing and training; the thruster diagrams show also that a well prepared manoeuvre can minimize
the use of propulsion units and therefore be more efficient. The great advantage of the Fast Time Simulation is the
opportunity to discuss alternatives of manoeuvres and also effects and strategies for different environmental conditions,
which might affect the ship unexpectedly at critical positions.
Fig. 20 Results from two manoeuvring exercises in SIMDAT interface: “Track Display” with contours (Top and
extract below ) and „Data Display“ for time history for thruster activities
a) run of the trainee without support by Fast Time Simulation (blue)
(b) run of the trainee with full support by pre-planning with Design and Planning Module (green)
c) comparison to the prepared manoeuvring plan with manoeuvring points (red)
5 CONCLUSIONS / OUTLOOK
Fast Time Manoeuvring simulation has proven its benefits for both lecturing and training for improving ship handling
knowledge and skills. For the future, the great potential will be investigated to be further involved into the real ship
operation on-board. The majority of the participants in the ship handling courses expressed their opinion that the Design
& Planning Module could be used for preparing berth plan on the ships. There is a high potential for optimisation to
reduce manoeuvring time and fuel consumptions /emissions. It is also possible to use the potential of FTS for various
analyses (e.g. fairway layout, accidents) to find measures to make shipping safer.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research results presented in this paper were partly achieved in research projects “Multi Media for Improvement of
MET” (MultiSimMan), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) surveyed by
Research Centre Juelich PTJ. Additionally it has to be mentioned that the professional version of the SAMMON software
tools has been further developed by the start-up company Innovative Ship Simulation and Maritime Systems GmbH
(ISSIMS GmbH; www.issims-gmbh.com).

7 REFERENCES
[1] Benedict, K., Baldauf, M., Felsenstein, C., Kirchhoff, M.: “ Computer-based support for the evaluation of ship
handling simulator exercise results” MARSIM - International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship
Manoeuvrability, Kanazawa, Japan, August 25th – 28th 2003
[2] Benedict, K., Baldauf, M., Kirchhoff, M., Koepnick, W., Eyrich R.: “Combining Fast-Time Simulation and
Automatic Assessment for Tuning of Simulator Ship Models” MARSIM - International Conference on Marine
Simulation and Ship Manoeuvrability, Terschelling, Netherlands, June 25th – 30th 2006. Proceedings, M-Paper 19
p. 1-9
[3] Benedict, K.; Baldauf, M.; Fischer, S., Gluch, M. Kirchhoff, M.: “Manoeuvring Simulation for Dynamic Prediction
Display to be used On-board and in Ship handling Simulator Training” MARSIM - International Conference on
Marine Simulation and Ship Manoeuvrability, 36th AGA of IMSF and International Conference, Panama City,
Panama; August 17-20 2009. Conference Proceedings p. S-60- to S-70.
[4] Benedict, K.; Baldauf, M.; Fischer, S.; Gluch, M.; Kirchhoff, M.; Schaub, M.; M.; Klaes, S.: Fast Time
Manoeuvring Simulation as Decision Support for Planning and Monitoring of Ship Handling Processes for Ship
Operation On-Board and Training in Simulators. MARSIM - International Conference on Marine Simulation and
Ship Manoeuvrability, Singapore, 23 -27 April 2012.
[5] Fischer, S., Benedict, K.: “Analyses of manoeuvring procedures on ferry Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in Rostock
Sea Port and potential improvements using alternative manoeuvring concepts with Dynamic Predictor” Internal
research report (in German only), Hochschule Wismar, Dept. of Maritime Studies, Warnemuende 2009
[6] ISSIMS GmbH Web page for SIMOPT & SIMDAT: http://www.issims-gmbh.com/joomla/index.php/software-
products
[7] Benedict, K.; Fischer, S.; Gluch, M.; Kirchhoff, M.; Schaub, M.; Baldauf, M.; Müller, B.: Use of Simulation
Augmented Manoeuvring in Ship-Handling Simulator Training. In Craig Dalton & Sam Teel (eds.): 18th
International Navigation Simulator Lecturers Conference (INSLC18) Proceedings, Plymouth Massachusetts, MMA
Publishing, pp 46 - 59
[8] Benedict, K.; Fischer, S.; Gluch, M.; Kirchhoff, M.; Schaub, M.; Baldauf, M.: Manoeuvring simulation for supporting
co-operative operation of ships on board and from shore. Conference of the International Maritime Simulator Forum
(IMSF) together with the 41th Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Workshop Seminar 2014 at the Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian / China from 14-17 October 2014
AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY
Knud BENEDICT graduated from the Faculty of Naval Architecture of the Rostock University in 1972. He achieved his
Doctoral Degree in Ship Hydrodynamics/ Manoeuvrability (1978) and his Habilitation on Ship Operation
Technology/Advisory Systems (1990). Currently he is Professor for Ship’s theory at Wismar University. Furthermore he
is Visiting Professor at World Maritime University Malmoe for Marine Technology. Until 1997 he was the Dean of the
Department of Maritime Studies at Wismar University and since 1998 he is the Head of its Maritime Simulation Centre
Warnemuende.
Sandro FISCHER graduated from the Maritime Academy Warnemuende and received his MSc. in Marine Transport
Engineering/ Navigation in 1994. He is the main developer of the advanced ECDIS-based applications at HSW since
2001.
Michael GLUCH graduated from the Maritime Academy Warnemuende in 1991 and achieved his Doctoral Degree in
Automation Sciences in 2008. He is chief coordinator for research at the Hochschule Wismar and head co-ordinator of
the manoeuvring prediction software.
Matthias KIRCHHOFF achieved his MSc. in the field of automation and control engineering. He is working on the
development of the fast time simulation, computer-based optimization and evaluation tools.
Michèle SCHAUB graduated from Hochschule Wismar University of Applied Sciences - Technology, Business and
Design in Nautical Science/ Maritime Transport and holds a CoC on management level. She received a Master Degree
from Rostock University. Now she is Research Associate specifically dealing with subjects of manoeuvring models and
parameters at Hochschule Wismar.

Michael BALDAUF graduated from the University of Rostock in 1990 and achieved his Doctoral Degree in Maritime
Safety in 1999. He was chief coordinator for research at the Hochschule Wismar before he joined WMU in 2009.
Presently, he holds a position as Associate Professor in Maritime Safety and Environmental Administration at WMU. In
his work, he is dealing with aspects of integration of new navigational equipment for enhanced applications to contribute
to safe navigation.

Burkhard MÜLLER graduated from the Maritime Academy Warnemuende in 1988. He made his career on various cargo
ships until 1993. After three years being a Marine Surveyor in Hamburg he joined AIDA Cruises and entered the cruise
business in 1996. Here he worked in all relevant nautical positions on different cruise ships and was finally promoted to
Master in 1999. For 11 years, he was the responsible Director and the Designated Person Ashore for the constantly
growing AIDA fleet and served as Master on various AIDA ships. In 2011, he was tasked to develop and build the
company own Simulation Training Centre. At present, he is the responsible Director of this Maritime Simulator Training
Centre of AIDA Cruises Company.
Marko PURWIN is currently pilot at Kiel and the Kiel Canal. Beside he is a certified Simulator Instructor for Carnival
Cruises at CSMART Almere and for Advanced Ship Handling Training at AIDA Cruises in Rostock. Before he developed
and delivered tailor made training for the NSB-Academy in Buxtehude, based on his former experience as navigational
Officer and Master on several ship types.
 Lecture for INSLC/ Capetown 05 Sep. to 8 Sep. 2016
presented by Dipl.-Ing. Claus Bornhorst
Rheinmetall Defence Electronics / Germany

Certification of Nautical and Ship Technical Simulators

from a Manufacturers Perspective

1. Preamble
During the last 15 years certification of maritimetraining and education
systems, especially nautical and ship technicalsimulators havebecome
more and more important. Maritime simulators, produced and delivered
by many different manufacturers are in use in universities, academies,
shipping companies and research centres all around the world.

STCW Convention requires that simulators which are used for

mandatory simulatorbased training or for assessment of maritime
competence with respect to STCW shall be approved by the relevant
maritime administration (Ref. STCW Regulation I/12). It is not specified
which maritime administration the certification process executes, it can
be a national as well as an international administration. Anyhow, the
certification of simulators and training centres has to follow minimum
requirements and has to comply with IMO STCW. But exactly the fact
that the only procedure today under which conditions a simulator can be
certified is not quality or accuracy orientedmakes the comparison
between different simulator systems difficult.
These daysone standard for certification of maritime simulator systems is
well introduced around the world – the Certification Standard of Det
Norske Veritas – GermanischerLloyd. The manufacturers have todevelop
and manufacture maritime simulators in accordance to thisStandard and
the Standard is introduced so well, that userstrust it and rely on it. But is
this justifiable? What does it mean in reality for manufacturers
(companies producing simulators) as well as for operators (parties
buying and operating simulators) and users (persons using the
simulators for training)?
What does an operator get, if he selects a simulator, certified by DNV-GL?
What does it mean, if asimulator isfor example in accordance to DNV-GL
Class A? Are Class A simulators really comparable between different
manufacturers? How do manufacturers apply for a certificate and which
special attention dothe operator and user haveto pay, if they want to buy
respectively use a simulator? All these questions and many more will be
addressed inthis lecture, in order to enlighten the meaning of certification
in maritime education.

This lecture will focus on certification topics seen from the different
perspectives of the following stake holders:
 Certification Authorities
 Manufacturers
 Operators
 Users

In this lecture “the Standard” refers to DNV-GL Standard 0033:2014-08

only, all information, assumptions and conclusions are basedon it.
 2. Certification Authority
End of 20th, beginning of the 21st century Norcontrol from Norway, at
that time the leading manufacturer for maritime simulation systems, and
the Norwegian certification company Det Norske Veritas (DNV), started
first discussions about certification of maritime simulators. Only short
time after, Norcontrol, today known as Kongsberg Maritime Simulation
Systems (KMSS), introduced the first simulation systems, certified in
accordance to a DNV Certification Standard. Very quickly the market
recognised that a certification of maritime simulators provides a certain
confidence and only some months later specifications for tenders
contained the requirement for a DNV certificate. In parallel, following a
similar idea, STN Atlas Elektronik from Germany (today Rheinmetall
Defence Electronics) started an own campaign together with
Germanischer Lloyd (GL) Germany and a second certificate entered the
market. Both certifications were not comparable, because the focus and
the goal what a certification should achieve were too different. After more
than 10 years and the merger of DNV and GL to DNV-GL, the DNV
certification alone survived and is a well-known and accepted baselinefor
simulator certification today.

Today DNV-GL is the one and only certification authority for maritime
simulation systems in international maritime simulator business and has
developed the Standard in accordance to IMO and STCW regulations.
These days the following nautical and ship technical simulation systems
can be certified in accordance to DNV-GL Standard 0033:2014-08:
  Simulators for bridge operations (section 3)
 Simulators for machinery operations (section 4)
 Simulators for radio communication (section 5)
 Simulators for liquid cargo handling (section 6)
 Simulators for cargo and ballast handling (section 7)
 Simulators for dynamic positioning (section 8)
 Simulators for safety and security (section 9)
 Simulators for VTS operation (section 10)
 Simulator for survival craft and rescue boat operation ( section 11)
 Simulator for offshore crane simulation (section 12)
 Simulator for remotely operated vehicles (section 13)

At the moment, DNV-GL is the most known and accepted certification

authority worldwide. There is no other society around the worldwith
comparable degree of acceptance.

The DNV-GL standard provides a guideline including minimum

requirements for the performance and quality of maritime simulation
systems. But it should be mentioned that DNV-GL standardsare only
onepossibilityfor certification, because IMO does not specifically require
a DNV-GL certificate for simulators. It can be done by any official
authority. Nevertheless due to it´s world-wide spread, there is indeed no
other, comparable certification. DNV-GL has a sole source position and
there is no competition, offering the same or similar certification for
maritime simulators.
Content of the certification:
The main goal for the certification criteria is set to physical level and
behavior realism of the simulation. This is mentioned in the standards in
chapter1.1.2. But does the standard confirm this statement?To answer
this, the criteria for a certification of simulators have to be investigated a
little bit more.

In section 1, sub-chapter 1.1.4 of the Standard, the scope for a simulator

is described. It is said that the standard shall provide “criteria for the
simulation functions, the equipment and the environment”, but it also
says that the standard “does not prioritize the reliability of specific
equipment or software used in the simulator”. There are no statements
about quality, accuracy or reliability. Thismeans that on the one hand the
existence of functions, equipment and environment will be checked in
general, but on the other there are no criteria to certify performance and
accuracy of functions and equipment.
An example for that can be given by referring to table 3-3 item 1.1.9
Radar / ARPA:
Standard Table 3-3 – Physical realism:

at least one Radar / ARPA display / unit (Automatic Radar Plotting Aid). It
shall be possible to simulate both 10 cm and a 3 cm radar. The radar shall
be capable to operate in the stabilised relative motion mode and sea and
ground stabilised true motion modes (see …)

Immediately two aspects are striking: this requirement “shall” be fulfilled -

it must not be – and there are no requirements about the radar picture e.
g. accuracy of the ship position in comparison to position in the visual or
on ECDIS chart, echo representation of shore line or shadowing etc..
In addition to Table 3-3 of the Standard, Table 3-4 gives information
about behaviour realism:

The ARPA simulation equipment shall incorporate the facilities for:

 Manual and automatic target acquisition
 Past track information
 Use of exclusion areas
 Vector / graphics time scale and data display
 Trail manoeuvres

It can be seen again that only “shall” is required and no information about
quality accuracy etc.is stated.More examples can be found, thus
revealingone of the major problems for manufacturers as well as for
operators and users.
The bandwidth of quality, accuracy and functionality is very broad: Even
a cheap and simple simulator, developed and used for gaming, may be
good enough to get the same DNV-GL Class A certification as simulators
designed and developed for highly professional applicationssuch as
research and development. It is more or less a matter of hardware layout
to be connected to the software, that´s it.

In reverse, a simulation system of manufacturer A, certified in

accordance to Class A, is not comparable to exactly the same hardware
layout of a simulation system of manufacturer B, also certified to Class A.
The software, being the core of all simulators, isvery much different
today, but software cannot be seen, it has to be experienced and tested,
if two systems shall truly be compared.
As already mentioned above, DNV-GL has generated certification
standards for more or less all maritime simulation systems. DNV-GL
offers the certification service to the market and certifies mainly systems
of manufacturers and courses including simulator hardware layouts of
maritime training and education centres.

3. Manufacturers
Due to DNV-GL Standard for certification, more or less every
manufacturer of maritime simulation systems develops and produces in
accordance to this Standard. The goal is always to apply for the highest
certification standard, Class A.
In order to get through this certification process, several major steps
have to be considered by the manufacturer. At first the manufacturer has
to analyse the requirements. This ensures, that all requirements from the
Standard will be considered and that the system will comply accordingly.
Once the technical pre-conditions are fulfilled, the application and
certification process can start. The manufacturer gets in contact with
DNV-GL and applies for a certification of his simulation system,
consisting of two parts:
 documentation compliance
 technical compliance
Documentation compliance:
First step of the certification process is pure paper work. The
documentation of the system,necessary for a system certification, is
predefined by DNV-GL and has to be sent to DNV-GL. DNV-GL checks,
if the system documentation is in accordance to the Standard and if it is
good and comprehensive enough to be certified. Feedback is given by
DNV-GL, if the documentation is acceptedor if something has to be
changed, added or modified. This process is an interaction between
DNV-GL and the manufacturer and ends with an accepted system
documentation.

Technical Compliance:
This part is normally executed at manufacturers premises. DNV-GL
personnel visits themanufacturers facilities in order to check and verify a
system which was prepared and is ready for inspection. The verification
follows the list of requirements stated in the standard, with the main part
being hardware related. DNV-GL checks, if all hardware components,
specified to be part of the system in accordance to the class, are
integrated.DNV-GL checks the completeness of the system. If this check
is successful, the next level, functional testing, is conducted. The
auditors are checking ifthe software functions, required by the Standard,
are implemented and available. However, this is only a check for
completeness of features- performance, quality and accuracy are no
part of the certification process.
The technical compliance check lasts on average 1 day per simulator
and if the system fulfils the Standard, DNV-GL issues a certificate valid
for five years.
But what if the certified software is extended or functions / features are
changed within the five years? It is not foreseen, that a manufacturer has
to re-certify the software, as long as the name / version of the software is
not changed, the certification will remain valid, independent of the actual
release.
For manufacturers, the certification of a simulator system is a costly
necessity nowadays, the value and benefits for manufacturers of high
end simulators is on the other hand limited.

4. Operators
An operator owning and using a simulator for training and education,
certified by DNV-GL is at first in a comfortable and good position. If he
operates a simulator which is certified in accordance to class A, B or C
he has evidence, that the simulator is in accordance to IMO STCW
standards and can be used for training accordingly. The operator can
trust the certificate and can apply for a national certificate with his
national maritime authority, because the DNV-GL certificate assures, that
he educates in accordance to STCW. What the operator may not knowis
the kind of quality the simulator provides, and at which technical level the
training system is.Okay, the levelof training is not only dependent on the
quality of the simulator he is using, it relies very much on the courses
and instructors too, but the best instructor cannot compensate
weaknesses on the simulator side.
During the pre-phase of a simulator purchase, many operators are
trusting too much on product descriptions and compliance matrixes. Only
a few operators do take time to test and compare different simulators in
advance in accordance to their needs. This behaviour is very interesting,
especially in relation to the high investments the operator is doing. In
general, the operator will receive a simulator at the end of the day, which
fulfils his requirements, but many do not know at which level of quality
and accuracy they can offer training.
The operators can only be sure that STCW minimum requirements are
fulfilled.

5. Users
In general the user of a simulator may not take much care about the
simulator and the certification. His priority is to get the necessary
certificate afterwards. Due to the DNV-GL certification and the national
certification, the training institute can issue the course certificate and
everybody should be satisfied. Really?
What does the User remember, when he is back on a bridge or in the
engine control room of his ship. Does the reality react in nearly the same
way, as he has experienced in the simulator? Or does the user judge,
that it was good to do the course, but the reality is much different?
Is he really prepared for the true challenges on board? And more
important, does the user evaluate the simulator as a reallyvaluable tool
for education, or was it more a gaming system for him? This would be
bad forfor the operator as well, because the User might not come back
for another course but look for a better system elsewhere. Let´s hope the
best.
The author thinks it is essential that a user evaluates a training course as
valuable, because the training was very close to reality, and that the user
can retain on what he has learned in a simulator exercise, when he has
to manage a critical situation in real live. Vice-versa, it would be dramatic,
if he has to manage a critical situation in real life, using a technique he
learned in a simulator which brings him in more trouble, because the ship
is not reacting like he experienced in his simulator training.
 6. Conclusion
In the chapters above the author tried to describe different views on
certification of maritime simulators, starting from DNV-GL and
manufacturers’ perspective to operators and users. In conclusion it can
be said, that the DNV-GL Standard for certification of simulators is the
only one today, which is accepted in the maritime simulation market
world-wide. From author’s knowledge no other internationally known
certification society is doing simulator certification and in all tenders and
Requests for Quotations around the world only DNV-GL Class A, B or C
certificates are asked. DNV-GL has a sole position in certification and
they are regulating the market. And of course the main interest of DNV-
GL is to have a customer base as broad as possible. This leads to the
conclusion that every manufacturer and operator knows that he is
producing respectively using a maritime simulation system certified for
maritime training, very well. But that is equal to a car driver who knows
that he is driving a car which is in accordance to international standards
for safe roads. He is able to go from A to B safely, but he may not know,
how the car is able to perform and if he gets to the final destination
without a breakdown.
The author would like to use thismetaphorof a vehicle to conclude this
lecture:
Let’s take the task to get from point A to point B. The route contains
difficult environmental conditions, bad roads and paths (transferred to
maritime training: navigate a ship from A to B, at night, difficult
environmental conditions, strong current,etc). Various car manufacturers
offer the operator a car, some cheap, some expensive, but all promise to
fulfil the task. All cars fulfil the requirements to go from A to B,they are in
accordance to the regulations of the Department of Transportation (Class
A).
But what these regulations do not say is, how the cars are equipped, if
the car has three or four wheels, has shock absorbers, has a roof, how
powerful the engine is, if the car has Xenon lights for better visibility, has
four wheel drive for unpaved paths, a navigation system, or how reliable
the car is. This is what theoperatorneeds to find out.
There are operators which are satisfied with the simple car they have
chosen, because their requirement level is not high and they reach point
B more or less safe and in time using paved roads. But other operators
use unpaved roads, wet, rough and slippery and reach the destination
much quicker. Next time the other operator try the same road and now
he experiences, that it is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to do it in
the more simple car. The journey was very uncomfortable, dangerous
and with some break downs, but it was a car with the same certification
(Class A) as the other one, which did the job without any problems, in
time and reliable.
This metaphor should illustrate, that simulators, certified in accordance to
DNV-GL Class A, are not interchangeablebecause they do not provide
the same performance, quality, reliability and accuracy. Two maritime
simulators certified with exactly the same Class A certificate can be
much different. Therefore it should be clearly recommended, if an
operator enters into a detailed evaluation process and before he orders a
simulator to do an accurate testing, in order not to buy “a pig in a poke”.
Once the simulator is delivered, it is too late and in general a buyer
always gets what he has paid for.
Therefore the author clearly recommends:
 for the DNV-GL to think about an excellence standard for
certification
 for the manufacturer to clearly point out benefits above class A, if
he has some to offer
 for the operator to evaluate the offers accurately and to check the
pre-selected simulation system in detailed hands-on tests before
the contract is awarded
 for the user to think about where to do the training courses
Information about the author:

Dipl.-Ing. Claus Bornhorst has studied IT Electronics beginning of the

80th and he is working as an International Sales Manager for more than
twenty years meanwhile. He works for Rheinmetall Defence Electronics
GmbH since 1998.
Today he is responsible as Vice President Sales Simulation and Training
for Nautical and Ship Technical Simulation Systems and is responsible
for respectively manages Rheinmetall´s key account customers in
Germany and Europe.

RheinmetallDefence Electronics GmbH

Brueggeweg 54; 28309 Bremen / Germany
Tel.: +49-421-1080 3534
EMail: claus.bornhorst@rheinmetall.com

References:
Standards for Maritime Simulator Systems DNV-GL-ST-033:2014-08
 For Decreasing the Workload

- Forming Judgement the Risk of Collisions with Traffic Vessels -

Akiko UCHINO, Hiroaki KOBAYASHI

Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan

Etchujima 2-1-6, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533, Japan
Phone&Fax +81-3-5245-7536, +81-3-5245-7392
uchino@kaiyodai.ac.jp, kobayasi@kaiyodai.ac.jp

Abstract: Lookout is one of the core tasks for achieving safe navigation while there is considerably wide
difference of achievement level based on individual competency and experience. If mariners do not
efficiently realize constant Lookout which can deal with a given navigational environment within a
given limited period of time, it would become difficult to maintain safe navigation. Therefore, to reveal
concrete guidelines of sufficient Lookout to deal with given situations together with appropriate
reasoning should benefit both improving the accuracy of quantifying workload and setting clear goals of
so-called “appropriate Lookout in STCW” for inexperienced mariners.
The authors have focused on the specified area of Lookout for collision avoiding with traffic vessels.
Because focusing Lookout on the specified area decrease the workload on mariners. Decreasing the
workload id one of effective approach to improve and maintain safe navigation.
In this paper, the theoretical reasoning of Lookout for collision avoiding, which mariners are actually
considered to set as criteria, is discussed. It is clarified that both the crossing angle of courses and the
ratio of velocity between the own vessel and the encountering vessel are effective factors which
determine the specified area of Lookout. The specified area of Lookout based on both the crossing angle
and the velocity corresponds to Lookout experienced mariners actually carry out.
This paper will focus on effective strategy of Lookout for mariners.

1. INTRODUCTION On the principle of system to work, a system can

successfully work only when each sub-system
1.1 Mariner’s function as a sub-system of can provide necessary functions to deal with
ship-handling system given situations.

According to the concept [1] Prof. Kobayashi
pointed out, Ship-handling is a system which
consists of two or more sub-systems to deal with
given navigational environment. Especially, as
one of such sub-systems, the functions achieved
by mariners, can be categorized into 9 kinds of
elemental techniques [2]. The 9 techniques are
defined as Lookout, Maneuvering,
Position-fixing, Planning, Rule of road
observance, Communication, Instrumental
operation, Emergency treatment, Management.
From this point of view, mariners, who are
incorporated into ship-handling system as an
essential part, should accomplish their allotted
functions, regardless of individual competency
and experience for the allotted functions.
1.2 Functions of Lookout achieved by mariners
In ship-handling system as mentioned the above,
Lookout is one of core functions which mariners
carry out. Mariners analyse surrounding state
and judge necessary reaction, based on amount
of information mariners gather through their
Lookout. Particularly, for encountering vessels,
Lookout is essential to find potential collision
and to make necessary avoiding procedure.
1.3 Necessity of Rational Lookout for
Decreasing Workload
Regardless of fields, executing an action always
needs a certain period of time to be carried out.
When avoiding collisions in ship-handling field,
mariners have to finish their necessary actions
before collisions, which means given time is
limited.
Forming a correct judgement needs sufficient
accuracy of analysing a given state. Even if
there are a considerable number of risky vessels,
a required level of accuracy for successful
judging the risk does not change. However, not
all the surrounding vessels are equally
dangerous to collide. And, the risk of collision
of each encountering vessel is changing every
moment.
In order to avoid wasting time, one effective
approach is to give a priority to the period when
the vessel has the risk of collision. In other
words, to focus on the specified area, where the
risk of collision is high, for Lookout is
considered to be rational.
Rational Lookout restrains mariners from
excessive workload, which enables mariners to
allot much time for necessary Lookout.
Unhurried Lookout leads to correct judgements.
Correct judgements, arises from the above
process, results in suitable actions for successful
avoiding.
In this paper, the authors focus on the specified
area of Lookout for rational Lookout for
decreasing the workload on mariners.
2. FUNCTION OF LOOKOUT FOR
AVOIDING COLLISION WITH VESSELS
Lookout for avoiding collisions with
encountering vessels, is the process where
mariners detect and analyse a latent risk from
360 degrees surroundings, and connect to
successful avoiding actions. This process can be
divided into two phases [3] as follows:
The 1st phase is to recognize the present
condition of encountering vessels such as a
kind, motion (position (distance and bearing),
course, speed) of encountering vessels.
The 2nd phase is to assess the motion of
encountering vessels and to predict its future
influences on the own vessel from assessing.
Based on analysing of movements of
encountering vessels, mariners predict potential
influence on the own vessel. In a case where a
necessity of avoiding arises, mariners continue
to assess the motion for planning avoiding
actions.
3. PRACTICAL STATE OF LOOKOUT BY
MARINERS AND WORKLOAD
In order to study “how should mariners observe
encountering vessels for achieving rational
Lookout”, at least the following 4 steps are
necessary.
1) Clarification of Aim: To study “how much
Lookout is necessary for achieving safe
navigation”
2) Grasping the present state for the above aim:
To study “the practical states of Lookout
standard mariners ordinary carry out”
3) To study the principle of achieving rational
Lookout
4) To verify the validity of the practical state by
mariners compared to the principle
In this section, the idea for step 1) and 2) will be
discussed.
3.1 What Is Necessary Lookout
3.1.1 Necessary Task Is Workload on Mariners
The necessary tasks for achieving safe
navigation are determined in accordance with
conditions of navigational environment. When
mariners accomplish those necessary tasks, safe
navigation is succeeded. Therefore, the
necessary tasks can be recognized as the
workload on mariners. For example, it is widely
acknowledged that excessive workload is one of
significant factor of causing human error.
3.1.2 Quantifying the Workload Based on
Navigational Environment
The balance between “the given time based on
navigational environment” and “how much
mariners achieve the necessary task within the
given limited time until occurrence of risk”,
determines whether safe navigation can be
achieved. With this in mind, the period of time
can be realized as one measure of workload.
By utilizing the period of time standard mariners
normally take to succeed necessary tasks, the
authors proposed the formulae [4] to quantify the
degree of workload based on navigational
conditions. In this paper, the formula of
workload of Lookout [2] is shown as follows:
Formula (1) is the quantifying formula to
estimate the workload of “Lookout” as the
necessary task to deal with given navigational
conditions. This brings the amount of necessary
“Lookout” for encountering vessels.
Workload of Lookout [sec] =
N
∑{ Tinteraction × running time / (τcrs + τv)} (1)
1
where:
running time [sec]: period of time own vessel
navigates for subject of estimation
Tinteraction[sec]: period of time required to carry
out an action of Lookout affected by dangerous
degree for collision with the other vessel
τcrs [sec]: the necessary interval time mariners
carry out Lookout affected by a degree of
crossing angle of the other vessels
τv [sec]: the necessary interval time mariners
carry out Lookout affected by a degree of
visibility
N: the number of interfering vessels within the
circle for Lookout
Tinteraction is a period of time required to carry out
an action of “Lookout” affected by dangerous
degree for collision with the other vessel.
According to previous research results [5], with a
potential of collision, we assume 10 second for a
vessel having high risk of collision, and 3
seconds for other vessels.
τcrs is the necessary interval time of actions of
Lookout which is affected by crossing angle as
indicated in the past report [6]. And we utilize the
characteristic for crossing angle obtained from
previous research as also indicated curve in the
past reports [5][6].
τv is the necessary interval time which is affected
by degree of visibility conditions. As obtained in
same research results, the interval time becomes
shorter with being visibility worse. In other
words, the worse visibility becomes, the higher
frequency of Lookout becomes.
N is the number of interfering vessels within the
circle for necessary Lookout. The Range of this
circle mariners should keep a watch, is assumed
as 3 miles radius around the point at 2 miles front
of own vessel.
Given navigational conditions determine these
values. “Lookout” is carried out with a time
interval affected by both τcrs and τv. Then, authors
approximate the relation between these two
variables with the sum. By utilizing this sum, the
necessary number of “Lookout” during running
time can be estimated. This number multiplied by
Tinteraction brings the period of time required to
carry out the necessary tasks of Lookout for a
certain interfering vessel during the running time.
That is: Tinteraction, τcrs and τv are different from
each interfering vessels. Then, Total period of
time required to carry out the necessary Lookout
for all of N interfering vessels can be obtained as
the necessary tasks. As mentioned above, the
necessary tasks to achieve safe navigation can be
defined as the workload. Formulae of estimating
workload [4] of Position-fixing and Maneuvering
are defined as well as Lookout.
3.2 Practical State of Lookout by Mariners
3.2.1 Navigational Situation for Study
Figure 1 shows the example situation the authors
set on the ship-handling simulator. This typical
situation where made up with not a small number
of necessary tasks, including Lookout, regularly
occurs to maintain safe navigation.
In this situation set up on the simulator, mariners
navigate in relatively wide area under fair
visibility without any wind and tide. It takes
about 50 minutes. The solid circle indicates the
initial position of own vessel. Diamonds are
major vessels for Lookout because of their risk of
collision. Squares are other vessels without any
potential to collide with own vessel. Two or more
crossing vessels simultaneously appear which
continues during the whole scenario. In addition,
one course change of own vessel from 78 degrees
to 35 degrees is planned in advance. Therefore,
this situation requires not a few numbers of
necessary tasks. This kind of situation occurs time - 300 seconds (5 minutes). However, this
regularly and a typical situation for single watch. figure indicates that, even when a normal single
watch situation occurs, the workload level
N occupies about 80 % of given time for mariners.
Own ship
Co.<078>,Spd.23.5kt
35 In addition, mariners can approximately achieve
No.15 Container
Co.<197>,Spd 16.0kt
the necessary tasks through the whole scenario
indicated by Figure 1. However, partially when
34.9
the workload level is higher, in the 5minute
No.13 Tanker
Co.<180>,Spd.12.0kt No.30 Passenger
Co.<330>, Spd.16.0kt
period of 25 to 30 minutes, their achieved level
34.8
becomes lower than other periods.
No.5 No.4 No.21 Tanker
34.7 No.7
Co.<212>,Spd. 15.0kt
3.3 Lookout: Key Factor for Decreasing
Stopped

Co.<200>,Spd 12.0kt
fishing boats
No.22,23
No.6 Fishing boats Workload
No.28 Container No.3 No.2
No.20 Cargo
34.6 Co.<000>,Spd. 16.0kt
Own Ship

No.9
Figure 3 shows the correlation between mariners’
CarFerry

34.5
No.1
Shiojim aru
Co.<064>
Spd.20.0kt
No.8 Cargo
Co.<046>,Spd.18.0kt No.16 Passenger
achieved degree of the necessary tasks and the
Co.<011>,Spd.18.0kt
Co.<015>
Spd.22.0kt estimated workload. The horizontal axis
indicates normalized values of the estimated
34.4
139.2 139.3 139.4 139.5 139.6 139.7 139.8 E workload from 0.0 to 1.0. The level of 1.0
means the workload level is equivalent to the
Figure 1. Example Situation for Study given period of time for mariners. The vertical
axis indicates the mariners’ achieved degree of
the estimated workload, by the ratio of
3.2.2 Achieved Results by Mariners for “mariners’ achieved results” to “the estimated
Necessary Lookout workload”. Accordingly, 1.0 on the vertical axis
means the state where mariners accomplish the
Figure 2 shows achieved results by mariners and
given workload completely. The level of 0.5
estimating results of the workload. Both values
means the state where mariners achieved 50
consists of Position fixing, Maneuvering and
percent of necessary tasks. Figure 3(a) indicates
Lookout.
the correlation by the sum total of
Position-fixing, Maneuvering and Lookout.
The horizontal axis shows elapsed time. The
Figure 3(b) indicates the correlation by Lookout.
vertical axes show the sum total of Position
fixing, Maneuvering and Lookout for 5 minute
On both figure of (a) and (b), diamonds indicate
period. As shown in Figure 2, the left-side
states being 0.8 and below of the workload level.
vertical axis is workload and the right-side
Circles indicate states being 0.8 or more level.
vertical axis is the achieved results by mariners.
Bar graph shows workload, the kinds of function except High total WL period High total workload period except High total WL period High total workload period

is indicated by different colors. The solid zigzag 1.2 1.2

Achieved degree of Necessary Lookout

Achieved degree of Necessary Lookout

line on bars shows the average fluctuation of 1.0 1.0

achieved result by mariners. 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

Position fixing Maneuvering
0.4 0.4
Lookout Total Achieved results
300 300 0.2 0.2
Total Achieved results by Mariners [sec]

240 240 0.0 0.0

0.0
0 0.2
60 0.4
120 0.6
180 0.8
240 1.0
300 0.0
0 0.2
60 0.4
120 0.6
180 0.8
240 1.0
300
Total Workload [sec]

Total Workload Workload of Lookout
180 180

(a) Total (b) Lookout

120 120

Figure 3. Correlation between Achieved degree by

60
0 0
0‐5
Figure 2. Achieved results by mariners and
Estimated Workload
As shown in Figure 2, the workload in every 5
minute period does not exceed the total period of
60
Mariners and Workload
5‐10 10‐15 15‐20 20‐25 25‐30 30‐35 35‐40 40‐45
time [min]
From Figure 3(a), when the workload-level
exceeds 0.8, the achieved degree by mariners
begins to break 1.0. It means, even if there
remains time, the larger workload level becomes,
the more the amount of necessary tasks mariners
fail. In addition, figure 3(b) focuses the
correlation of Lookout. When the workload
level exceeds 0.8, the achieved degree of
Lookout goes down.
It is clarified that Lookout occupies majority of
the workload, and its achieved degree is prior to
omit to carry out when the total is high.
4. SPECIFIED AREA OF LOOKOUT BY
SENSE OF DANGER
Multiple factors are connected with the process
of carrying out Lookout. Especially, the area of
Lookout mariners focus on can be considered to
be one of the important factors of determining
the workload of Lookout. To narrow Lookout
down to a certain specified area is effective to
decrease the amount of Lookout, which could
avoid wasted Lookout. However, a reasonable
criterion for narrowing is essential to tell
potential vessels to collide and other vessels
apart.
Therefore, in this section, the area of Lookout
mariners focus on will be discussed.
4.1 Starting and Finishing of Lookout
The area of Lookout is formed of the starting
points and the finishing points.
4.1.1 Starting Points of Lookout
In order to maintain safe navigation, firstly, the
timing of finding a risky vessel is important.
When mariners detect a vessel, they don’t know
whether the detected vessel has any collision
risk or not. It is necessary for them to recognize
both risky and non-risky vessel at the early stage
where mariners can succeed in avoiding
collisions.
The necessary starting point of avoiding action
is determined by required time and distance for
avoiding collision. Because, there is the limited
range of starting action where the own vessel
succeeds in avoiding a target due to the own
vessel’s maneuverability. There is a previous
study [7] showing the limited range of starting
action for successful avoiding. In addition,
generally, it has also been pointed out that it is
necessary to detect the encountering vessel at
least 10 minutes before the avoiding action start
in the other study [2]. The starting points can be
obtained by combining these two theories.
4.1.2 Finishing Points of Lookout
After starting Lookout, as long as the risk of
collisions exist, continuing Lookout is necessary.
However, when the possibility disappeared,
mariners can finish their Lookout.
It is widely acknowledged that experienced
mariners use their wisdom obtained through
their experience to maintain safe navigation
every day. Although such experienced mariners
may execute their actions unconsciously, their
consistent reactions suggest the certain criteria
called sense of danger they may have. To reveal
such a sense can provide a beneficial view for
setting some concrete guidelines for executing
rational Lookout.
Assumptions of criterion for judging the risk of
collisions
The authors assume candidate criterion of
judging the risk of collision and finishing
Lookout as follows:
Assumption A:
In the case where the encountering vessel
moves away, possibility of collision is
diminishing. Lookout can be finished.
Assumption B:
In the case where the encountering vessel
becomes close, possibility of collision still
remains. However, depending on the passing
distance, “finishing points of Lookout”
change. When the estimated passing distance
is large, the possibility of collision is low,
and safe passing is considered to succeed and
Lookout is finished. On the contrary, when
the estimated passing distance is small, a risk
of collision still remains. It needs to continue
Lookout until the risk of collision completely
disappeared.
Figure 4. Example of Finishing Point of Lookout
for Stand-on Situations
The above assumptions are applied on the major
encountering situations [8]. Figure 4 shows the
case where the own vessel is stand-on vessel by
relative coordinate. In order to apply
assumptions, the positional relationship between
own vessel and encountering vessel is indicated
relatively. The intersection point of horizontal
axis and vertical axis, is the position of the own
vessel. Centering on this position, upper side
indicates bow side, and the lower side is stern
side. And the left-hand side is port-side, the
right-hand side is starboard-side. The arrows
indicate the direction of the encountering vessel
move. In this case, the encountering vessel is
approaching from the port side. When the
encountering vessel is approaching to the own
vessel’s bow side with short range, continuing
Lookout is necessary until the encountering
vessel has sufficiently passed. In the other case
where the encountering vessel passes to the own
vessel’ stern side, the own vessel moves away
from the encountering vessel. Lookout can be
finished earlier than bow passing. Based on the
proposed assumptions, at positions indicated by
the broken-line, Lookout is estimated to be
finished.
Comparing assumptions with Practical Lookout
In order to compare the assumptions and
practical Lookout, simulator experiments were
carried out. Examinees belong to Japanese major
shipping companies and hold more than 8 years
experience on board. All of them are assumed to
be average mariners who can achieve safe
navigation ordinarily. Distributions of their
finishing Lookout are shown in Figure 5.
Overlapping the area by assumptions to their
behaviour, the assumption corresponds to
practical finishing points by mariners. The peak
of this area is shifting to forward, also
corresponds.
Finishing Lookout for Crossing with Stand‐on
own ship Finishing Lookout
6
5 Rule 7 Risk of collision. This may be a reason
4 why many mariners check a compass bearing
3
2
1 motion factors of physical solid, is difficult for a
0 human. This can be explained as a principle of
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
‐1
[mile]
‐2
Figure 5. Comparison with practical Lookout
The practical Lookout for judging the risk of
collisions, experienced mariners carry out, can
be considered to be basically based on the sense
of danger for judging potential collision with
moving obstacle.
In order to develop the accuracy and to obtain
concrete shape or distance, a further analysis is
necessary.
5. SPECIFIED AREA OF LOOKOUT BY
CROSSING ANGLE OF COURSE AND
VELOCITY
There are at least two main approaches to
further study on the specified area of Lookout
for rational judging of the risk of collisions. One,
is the way of analyzing a large number of
mariners’ behavior, the other is a theoretical
approach. The former way has a particular
difficulty. It needs to carry out a large number of
experiments with wide-ranging conditions, and
its analysis is relatively time-consuming task.
However, the latter theoretical approach is more
feasible. The risk of collisions is determined by
the positional relationship between two vessels,
a physical phenomenon. The authors further
study by a theoretical approach.
5.1 Limitation of Recognizing by Bearing
As a criterion of judging the risk of collision,
changes of compass bearing is often used. This
information is easy to obtain and check a change
by using a compass on bridge if under fair
visibility.
In the COLREGS (International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea), there is the
statement: “(d)-(i) such risk shall be deemed to
exist if the compass bearing of an approaching
vessel does not appreciably change” / 1972 -
ordinarily to judge the risk of collisions.
However, to accurate recognize an angle, among
4
physical phenomena: while a motion of physical
solid is a state in 3-dimensional space, a motion
a human receives is an image on 2-dimensional
space. Changes of compass bearing are
theoretically considered by using geometry. Due
to geometrical consideration, a compass bearing
will be stated by “relative bearing” centering on
the own vessel’s position in this paper.
Figure 6 shows two kinds of encountering
situation for geometrical calculating. Their
crossing angle of vessels’ courses between the
own vessel and the encountering vessel is
different. The encountering situation A is the
case where the crossing angle is small, 22.5
degrees, and the situation B is the case of large
crossing angle, 152.5 degrees.
change is quite small, regardless of crossing side.
Compared to the case of small crossing angle,
the timing when the bearing begins to change is
late and amount of changes is small. In this
period of 12 minutes, mariners could not
recognize the change of bearing, which means
judging the risk of collision only by bearing is
difficult.

With this in mind, there is a limit to judge the

Encountering vessel B risk of collision only by a bearing.

angle[deg]
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 time[min]
Own vessel Encountering vessel A 0
-20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120

Figure 6. Encountering situations for calculating -140

-160
-180

(A) Crossing angle: 22.5 degrees

angle[deg]
The followings are conditions of geometrical 180
160
140

calculating: 120
100
80
60
40 time[min]
1) At the initial position to calculate, both 20
0
-20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

vessels exist 3 miles from the potential point -40

-60
-80

of collision. -100
-120
-140
-160
-180

2) Velocity of the own vessel is fixed to 12 knots

3) The following two cases are calculated:
Case 1: Bow-crossing
The encountering vessel passes with 0.5
miles in front of the own vessel.
Case 2: Stern-crossing
The encountering vessel passes with 0.5
miles in the rear of the own vessel.
Figure 7 shows changes of relative bearing from
calculating. The upper graph (A) shows changes
in the case where the crossing angle of vessels’
course is 22.5 degrees. The lower graph (B)
shows changes in the case of 152.5 degrees. The
horizontal axis shows an elapsed time. The time
of 0 is the initial time for calculating. The
vertical axis shows the amount of change from
the initial bearing. The state of minus on the
vertical axis shows bow-crossing, and the plus
shows stern-crossing.
In the case of 22.5 degrees, regardless of
crossing side, when at least 2 minutes pass, the
bearing clearly begins to change. At early stage,
mariners can find a change of the bearing and
predict which side from bow and stern the
encountering vessel will cross in near future.
However, in the case of 152.5 degrees, until 12.5
minutes pass, the bearing scarcely changes or a
(B) Crossing angle: 157.5 degrees
Figure 7. Comparison of changes of relative
bearing between two crossing angles
5.2 Specified Area of Lookout by Crossing
Angle and Velocity
Relative Vector when Collision
The Relative vector is one of important factors
to grasp the relationship between two vessels’
motion. The positional relationship where these
vessels would collide can be shown by relative
coordinates system as Figure 8. The point O is
the position of the own vessel. The point P with
distance L in front of the own vessel, is the
potential point of collision. The crossing angle
of courses between two vessels is indicated by θ.
The velocity of the own vessel is vO, and the
encountering vessel’s is vT.
As the basic situation, the velocity of vessels is
assumed to be the same. When the encountering
vessel is at the point A, the distance between
point P and A is the same L as the distance
between point P and O. As shown in Figure 8,
when the relative vector from the encountering
vessel corresponds to the own vessel’s position,
they are under the potential state of collision.
P
θ
vT = v O Encountering vessel
A
vO
O
Own vessel
Figure 8. Relative position in case of collision
Specified Area of Lookout
When mariners judge the risk of collision, it is
insufficient to predict just one situation. They
need to predict the situation with a certain range
centering main situation. One of main factors is
the velocity of the encountering vessel.
In order to consider the specified area of
Lookout for rational judging the risk of collision,
the authors assume the area by the crossing
angle of vessels’ course and velocity of vessels.
One of typical situations where mariners need to
avoid other vessels is navigation in a congested
water area of sea route. At that time, the average
velocity is 12 knots. For calculating, velocity of
surrounding vessels under usual navigation is
assumed to be from 6 knots to 24 knots. 6 knots
is half of the own vessel’s velocity, and 24 knots
is twice of the own vessel.
Figure 9 [9] shows the distribution of velocity of
807 vessels from a traffic census at Kurushima
Strait. The Kurushima Strait is one of the
notable examples of busy traffic sea routes in
Japan. According to this census result, the
average velocity is 11.9 knots and the standard
deviation (σ) is 4.2 knots. A hypothesis range of
velocity from 6 knots to 24 knots corresponds to
3σ of the distribution of this census. It means
that 99.7% of all the vessels can be covered in
the range. The author assumes this range to be
the typical distribution of velocity in the area
where mariners are responsible for avoiding
collisions with encountering vessels at all times.
This range of velocity the author set can be
reasonable for this consideration. The authors
apply this range of velocity to the specified area
of Lookout together with the crossing angle of
crossing.
number of vessels
Velocity[kt]
[9]
: census by The Japan Association of Marine Safety
Figure 9. Distribution of Speed in Congested
Water Area
Figure 10 shows the specified area of Lookout
based on the crossing angle of vessel’s courses
and the velocity of the encountering vessel,
which is expanded from Figure 8. Even if the
crossing angle is the same, depending on the
encountering vessel’s velocity, the position of
encountering vessel and the relative vector could
fluctuate as indicated in Figure 10.
Considering that a certain range for predicting
the risk of collision, the specified area indicated
by the angle α in Figure 10 can be recommended
for judging the risk of collision.
P
θ
vT = 0.5 vO
C
L
vT = vO Encountering vessel
A
α
vO
O
Own vessel
vT = 2vO
B
Figure 10. Specified Area of Lookout by Crossing
Angle and Velocity
Changes of Area by Crossing Angle of Courses
Figure 11 shows increase and decrease of the
angle α depending on the crossing angle of
courses between the own vessel and the
encountering vessel. The horizontal axis
indicates the crossing angle, and the vertical axis
indicated the angle α indicating a range of the
specified area of Lookout.
 As shown in Figure 12, depending on the
Range angle of Specified area of Lookout
180
crossing angle of courses, inclines of these lines
can be recognized to be different. The larger the
150
crossing angle is, the more the incline become
Range angle [deg]

120
perpendicular. As mentioned in section 4, the
90 area of Lookout can be assumed by the sense of
60 danger qualitatively. The shape of that area is
30
parabola-shaped. However, considering the
0
crossing angle of courses and velocity, a cline of
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 axis and width of this parabola can be improved.
Crossing angle [deg]
The area of Lookout indicated by a
Figure 11. Change of Range Angle Indicating the parabola-shape could be considered by the range
Specified Area of Lookout angle α.
In the case where the crossing angle is 35 12

degrees, the angle α is more than 90 degrees. In 11

10

the other case of 90 degrees, the angle α is about 9

8
35 degrees. And in case of 165 degrees, the 7

angle α is only 5 degrees. The smaller the 6

MILE
5

crossing angle is, the wider the specified area by 4

3

the angle α is. The width of fluctuation is wide. 2

1
0
‐8 ‐7 ‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
The specified area of Lookout by the crossing ‐1
MILE

angle and the velocity widely changed. It means (a)Crossing angle: 105-130 degrees
that the amount of workload of Lookout changes 12

11

depending on these two factors, and these 10

9
factors are effective factors to focus the area of 8

Lookout to decrease the workload. 7

6
MILE

5.3 Comparing with Practical Lookout 4

Figure 12 shows a comparison of the area of the 1

specified area by the crossing angle and velocity ‐8 ‐7 ‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1

‐1
0
MILE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

and Lookout between mariners’ practical (b) Crossing angle: 70- 90 degrees
Lookout. The case of Figure 12 is the case 12

11
where the own vessel is give-way situation 10

mariners needs sufficient Lookout. 9

6
In order to compare the difference by the
MILE

crossing angle of vessel’s courses, the 4

coordinate system of Figure 12 is relative. And, 2

1
depending on the crossing angle, 3 graphs are 0
‐8 ‐7 ‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
shown: (a), (b) and (c). The upper graph (a) ‐1
MILE

shows the cases where the crossing angle is
large from 105 to 130 degrees. The middle
graph (b) shows the state of 70 to 90 degrees.
The lower graph (c) shows the state of small 24
to 32 degrees.
Symbols indicate positions of the encountering
vessels when mariners carried out Lookout on
vessels. Distribution indicated how mariners
develop their Lookout from beginning until
finishing. Each broken lines on Figure 12 show
approximated lines of each distribution.
(c) Crossing angle: 24-32 degrees
Figure 12. Change of Area of Lookout
The results show one criterion for mariners
when judging the risk of collision. If mariners
comprehend the above characteristics of the risk
depending on the crossing angle of courses and
the velocity, mariners could focus their Lookout
on the specified area for judging the risk of
collision. The focusing enables mariners to
decrease their workload of Lookout.
 6. CONCLUSION
The following issues are discussed:
1) Rational Lookout is necessary for avoiding
excessive workload. And, such Lookout could
promote a correct judgement and result in
suitable reactions for achieving safe navigation.
2) Necessary task to achieve safe navigation can
be recognized as the workload on mariners. The
workload is determined by a given navigational
situations.
3) Quantifying the workload by a given
navigational conditions is shown.
4) The workload of Lookout occupies majority
of the sum total workload. That is, in order to
decrease the workload, it is effective to decrease
the workload of Lookout.
5) As an effective procedure to achieve the
rational Lookout, the authors propose theoretical
approach by using the crossing angle of vessels’
courses and velocities.
REFERENCE
[1] Hiroaki Kobayashi, “Functional Approach
on the Techniques of Ship Handling”,
Conference proceedings of 5th Asian Conference
on Marine Simulator and Simulation Research,
Dejeon, Korea, 2005
[2] Hiroaki Kobayashi, “Mariners’ Function for
Safe Navigation”, Conference proceedings of
MARSIM2006, Tershelling, The Netherlands,
2006
[3] Hiroaki Kobayashi, “Techniques for
Ship-handling and Team Management”,
ISBN978-4-303-21930-7, KAIBUNDO
Publishing, 2016
[4] Akiko Uchino and Hiroaki Kobayashi,
“Human Error and Workload from the
Viewpoint of Quantitative Difficulty of
Navigation”, Conference proceedings of
MARSIM2012, SINGAPORE, 2012
[5] Hiroaki Kobayashi, “Mariners’ Function for
Safe Navigation”, Conference proceedings of
MARSIM2009, Panama-city, PANAMA, 2009
[6] Akiko Uchino and Hiroaki Kobayashi,
“Workload, Omission Error and the
Prioritization on Navigational Techniques”,
Conference proceedings of ACMSSR2012,
Manila, Philippines, 2012
[7] Hiroaki Kobayashi, is “Guideline for
collision avoiding maneuver and proposal on
simple estimation method”, Conference
proceedings of the 13th ACMSSR(Asian
Conference on Marine Safety and System
Research), Korea, 2013
[8] Akiko Uchino and Hiroaki Kobayashi, “The
Range of Lookout For Assessing Collision
Situations”, Conference proceedings of
MARSIM2015, Newcastle, United Kingdom,
2015
[9] Characteristics of Kurushima Kaikyo,
Kurushima Kaikyo Vessel Traffic Service Center,
http://www6.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/kurushima/succor/
guide/
AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY
Akiko Uchino
Prof. UCHINO Akiko is an associate professor
of Tokyo University of Marine Science and
Technology. She was a lecturer of the
department of Production Systems Engineering
at Tokyo Metropolitan College of Technology.
Her major fields are man-machine system
analysis in ship handling. She holds a
Bachelor’s and Master’s degree (Transportation)
from Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine,
and a Doctoral degree in Engineering from
Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine.
Hiroaki Kobayashi
Prof. KOBAYASHI Hiroaki is a professor
emeritus of Tokyo University of Marine Science
and Technology. His major fields are
man-machine system analysis in ship handling,
seamen’s training, safety evaluation of ship
maneuvering and ship maneuverability. He is
engaged in wide-ranging activities in maritime
field, and achieves unique results especially on
human factor as chairman of International
Marine Simulator Forum. He holds a Bachelor’s
degree (Navigation) from Tokyo University of
Mercantile Marine, a Bachelor’s degree
(Engineering) from Osaka University, a Master’s
degree (Engineering) from Hiroshima University
and a Doctoral degree in Engineering from the
University of Tokyo.
 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport, Slovenia

Ship Handling Challenges When Vessels

are Outgrowing Ports
M. Perkovic, T. Brcko, B. Luin & P. Vidmar

19TH INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION SIMULATOR LECTURERS’ CONFERENCE – INSLC 19

“A Conference of the International Maritime Lecturers Association (IMLA)”

The South African Maritime Training Academy (SAMTRA) &

the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT)

5 – 8 September 2016; Western Cape, South Africa

Review of maritime transport 2014, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2014_en.pdf
100%
mGT
90%
WORLD MERCHANT FLEET of ships of 300gt and over + 92%
Evolution of GT, DWT and Number of ships between 1995 and 2010 (1st of Jan)
80%

70%
mDWT
60%
+ 81%
50%

40% Nb Ships
+ 29%
30%

20%

10%

0%
95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
IUMI, http://www.cefor.no/Documents/Statistics/IUMI%20Statistics/IUMI%202010%20GlobalShippingMarket.ppt
Environmental awareness!!!
 Curriculum 2012/13
Contact hours
1st Year P S V D ∑ ECTS Simulation
1. semester 240 195 15 450 30
1 Selective chapters of physics and math’s 60 60 120 8
2 Maritime and economic law 30 30 60 4
3 Maritime transport systems 30 15 15 60 4  LCH, SH
4 Materials and welding 30 30 60 4
5 Thermodynamics 45 30 75 5  CBT, ERS

Curriculum 1852/53 6 Fuels, lubricants and water

2. semester
45
210 15
30
165 60
75
450
5
30
 CBT, ERS, CM

7 Mechanics and hydrodynamics 60 60 120 8  CBT, SIM

 ERS
Teaching 8
9
Engineers graphics and technical
documentation
Electro systems for engineers
30
45
0
15
30
30 15
60
105
4
7  CBT, ERS
 CBT
Subject hours/week 10
11
Basic seamanship for engineers
Maritime skills for engineers
45
30
15
30
15
30
75
90
5
6
450 15 360 75 900 60

I. year II. year 2nd Year P S

Contact hours
V D ∑ ECTS
3. semester 210 15 115 60 450 30
12 Ship’s construction elements 45 15 15 15 90 6  CBT
Religious 2 2 13 Pneumatics and hydraulic 30 30 60 4  CBT, ERS
14 Maritime English 30 30 60 4
15 Regulation and automation 45 30 15 90 6  CBT, ERS, SIM
Mathematics 4 2 16 Computing and informatics for engineers 30 15 30 15 90 6  CBT, ERS
17 Human resources 30 15 10 5 60 4  ERS, INTG
4. semester 195 45 120 90 450 30
Commercial 2 - 18
19
Diesel propulsion
Shipping management
45
30
15
15
30 90
45
6
3
 CBT, ERS, INTG
 CBT, ERS
science 20
21
Auxiliary systems
English language for ship engineers
45
45
15
15
45
30
15
15
120
105
8
7
 CBT, ERS
 CBT, ERS
22 Watch keeping in engine room 30 15 15 30 90 6   CBT, ERS

Practical 3 - 405 60 235 150

Contact hours
900 60

3rd Year P S V D ∑ ECTS

seamanship 5. semester 135 90 135 90 450 30
23 Technical measurements 15 15 15 15 60 5  CBT, ERS
24 Steam and gas propulsion 15 15 15 15 60 4  CBT, ERS
Nautical - 3 25 Safety aboard ships
Block of optional subjects (3)
15
90
15
45
15
90
15
45
60
270
4
18
 CBT, CM, INTG

science op1 Maritime information systems

op2 Tankers
30
30
15
15
30
30
15
15
90
90
6
6
 LCH, ERS, INTG
 LCH
op3 Ship’s maintenance 30 15 30 15 90 6  CBT
op4 Ship’s propulsion II 30 15 30 15 90 6  CBT, ERS, INTG, SIM
Shipbuilding - 3 op5 Marine refrigeration technology II 30 15 30 15 90 6  CBT, ERS, SIM
op6 Corrosion and material protection 30 15 30 15 90 6  CBT
op7 Navy ship’s fighting systems  CBT, ERS
∑
30 15 30 15 90 6
11 10 6. semester 0 0 30 420 450 30
26 Engine room simulator training 0 0 30 60 90 6  CBT, ERS, INTG
27 Industry practice for engineers 0 0 0 210 210 14
28 Dissertation 0 0 0 150 150 10  CBT, ERS, INTG
150 90 165 495 900 60
 More than 100 million tonnes of water-borne cargo are handled in the NAPA seaports every year.
koper rijeka trieste venezia ravenna

1991-2011
Port of Koper - experienced the largest
2011 absolute growth and shift of container traffic
2007 in the region.
2003
With the rapid growth of shipping and vessels’
1999
enlargement the challenges of port security, safety,
1995
and environmental impact are intensified.
-400,000 -300,000 -200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
 15.02.2015 „Gerda Maersk“

17.06.2009 „CMA CGM Balzac “ 10.04.2012 „Maersk Karlskrona“ 26.05.2014 15.02.2015 367x46x14.5m
350x46x13.5m
334x43x12.5m
300x40x11.4 304x43x11.4m 318x43x11.4m
292x40
Incident Analysis
 Incident Analysis
Berthing approach; EMV Neptune Okeanis“ strong SE wind

“med mooring” a technique for mooring a

vessel to pier at a perpendicular angle …

… when there is not enough space at the

wharf for a number of ships or when there is
a ramp at the stern of the ship
 Incident Analysis
„Neptune Ithaki“ & „E.R. Santiago“ case Basin 1
Incident Analysis

Basin 2
 Incident Analysis

„INTERACTION EFFECTS OF A PASSING SHIP”

Incident Analysis
Incident Analysis
Accident investigation; full mission simulation
based studies;
Eurocargo Istanbul case
Mitigating Risk
Priporočila
Full Mission Main Bridge: Pilot, Master and Port State Inspector

Virtual Tug Bridges; stern (Voith Schneider Propeller)

and bow tug (Tractor Drive)
Container Vessel Case Study; simulation based vs
deterministic approach
 Container Vessel Case Study; simulation based vs
deterministic approach

high resolution bathymetry … why?

- narrow channel (tide dependent cross-section)!
high-resolution bathymetry
 Deterministic analyses

Factors determining minimum channel width

(PIANC approach)
 Semi-probabilistic analyses

Determining minimum channel width

(Real-time simulation approach)

The green and red sector shows the minimum required width based on statistical
analyses and a 95% confidence level at various metocean conditions.
The green line presenting the sweep margin for Post Panamax Container Vessel
Class, while the red margin is obtained handling EEE class container vessels.
Pink is the minimum required dredging and grey area is the recommended
dredging area.
Laser Ranging, Docking System, Pilot
Navigation System, Leading Light & AIS AtoN’s
AIS AtoN’s
AIS message 21
ref. IALA A-126

• AIS buoys are established in areas where navigation is difficult or in areas

where there is a raised risk of collision

Real, Synthetic, and Virtual AIS AtoN

FATDMA

Real AIS AtoN MMSI 99MID1XXX

Synthetic AIS AtoN MMSI 99MID1XXX
Virtual AIS AtoN MMSI 99MID6XXX
Pilot Navigation System
 “entry diagram”

Wind [°Bf]

Tide [cm]
Draught [m]

Prohibited area Additional pilot Additional tug

Additional tug
Navigational channel width [m]
Real approaching manoeuvre (Maersk Kleven)

(synthetic)

(synthetic) (AIS AtoN)

(synthetic)

(virtual)

(sector light)
(virtual) high-resolution bathymetry
(synthetic)
(metocean & laser ranging)
 Large Vessel; berthing issue
When a large container vessel is approaching (through existing channel), positioning
alongside a quay where inadequate fenders are in place and STS cranes are close to
the approaching ship, special consideration is required.
Parameters such as precise vessel position, transversal speed, and vessel-approaching
angle are of great importance. To provide these parameters in real time, a laser
docking system was developed and integrated with metocean data
Laser Ranging and Docking System
Docking of vessel as a part of sea voyage requires high precision of positioning, reliability of
solution, independent architecture and a operator’s knowledge.
Laser Ranging and Docking System
Docking of vessel as a part of sea voyage requires high precision of positioning, reliability of
solution, independent architecture and a operator’s knowledge.
Laser Ranging and MetOcean System
Laser Docking and MetOcean System at
Container Termianl
Laser Ranging and MetOcean System
Berthing Energy Calculation
Analyses of vessel spacing in the basin; Port
of Koper Basin 2 case study
Analyses of vessel spacing in the basin; Port
of Koper Basin 2 case study

Adopted from; http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

Deterministic analyses of vessel spacing in
the basin

(Ligterngen H., Velsink H. Port and Terminals, VSSD, 2012) ...

.... a safe width for a standard cargo vessel of the Panamax size will
generally be 4 to 5 times the width of the vessel + 100 meters or 228 to
260 meters
 Deterministic analyses of vessel spacing in
the basin

ROM 3.1-99. Puertos del Estado (Ed.) Recommendations for the Design of the Maritime
Configuration of Ports, Channels and Harbour Basins, 2007 .... the minimum width of the
basin (Bnd) must be the greatest of the following values;

Bnd=3*Bmax + Lr+20 m Bnd=5*Bmax+Lr

For Panamax; towing length (Lr=sum of the overall length of the tug boat [LOA] and the
horizontal projection of the towing line) will be from 71 – 85 meters. So minimum basin width
will be 187m – 201m following the first equation or 231m – 245m applying the second criteria.
Semi-probabilistic analyses of vessel spacing
in the basin
Semi-probabilistic analyses of vessel spacing
in the basin
Semi-probabilistic analyses of vessel spacing
in the basin
Deterministic analyses of vessel spacing in
the basin

Port Designer’s Handbook, 2014 ....

.... for very long single-berth piers the clear water area between the two piers
should be 2 times the beam of the largest ship plus 50 meters.

For the Panamax vessel the minimum width of the basin will only be 114 metres
(2*32m+50m)
 Transas Navi Harbour

\c:1440141779,s:002780202*0D\$AIVSI,IZOLA,1,072301.150531,43,-101,22*14
\c:1440141779,s:002780201*0E\$AIVSI,SLAVNIK,3,072301.150594,43,-87,41*36
\c:1440141779,s:002780201*0E\!AIVDM,1,1,4,A,402Fhbiuv:WG10ruhtI8PaW00<0q,0*58
\c:1440141779,s:002780201*0E\$AIVSI,SLAVNIK,4,072301.203989,45,-103,24*0C
Simulation-Based Engineering Research & Development ?
Simulation-Based Engineering Research & Development ?

CASE; MV HOEGH OSAKA (PCC) 2015-01-03

Simulation-Based Engineering Research & Development ?
Simulation-Based Engineering Research & Development ?

CASE; MV HOEGH OSAKA (PCC) 2015-01-03

 Conclusion

Capt. Stephen Gyi, Influence of Marine Operations on Site Selection & Design of Marine Terminals
 Thank You

“You cannot manage what you cannot measure” The pessimist complains about the wind;
Attributed to Bill Hewlett (1930-2001), the optimist expects it to change;
and the realist adjusts the sails.
Co-founder of Hewlett-Packard

by William Arthur Ward

 A study of berthing maneuver using tugboats based on the mariner's characteristics

Atsushi ISHIBASHI (Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan)

Hiroaki KOBAYASHI (Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan)

Abstract:
Currently, many researchers have studied on the safe operation of the ship. We believe that in order to make a
reasonable discussion about various issues related to ship operation, it is necessary to analysis of ship operations
system. The ship operating system is constructed in three elements such as mariner, ship and environments. In
order to achieve a safe operation of the ship operator is a vital presence.
However, although mariners are at the center of ship operation systems, there have not been analyses from the
viewpoint of their necessary functions.
In this paper, we introduce an example of adapting the characteristic analysis of mariner on the development of
the support system for berthing maneuver using tugboats.
In this study, we analyzed the characteristic of mariner who berthing maneuver using ship maneuvering simulator.
As the result, we can get some important characteristics of mariner for sharing the necessary function of mariner
and support system. And we decided the necessary function and configuration of support system based on
mariner’s characteristic on berthing maneuver using tug boats.

1. INTRODUCTION

Currently some support system has been developed to enhance the safety and to promote efficiency in ship
handling. The support system differs from full automatic control system. The support system is to accomplish
safety ship handling by sharing the function and smoothly integrating the operator and the system. The purpose to
develop a support system is to accomplish required task in the limit of information processing competency of
mariner, and then an operator can achieve required task surely.
However, the development of several support system is “seeds oriented” and not “needs oriented.” It has not been
developed based on the function an operator needs.
As mentioned above, it is necessary to clarify definitions about necessary techniques that is in order to achieve
and maintain safe navigation. And then, it is to analyze its contents from the aspect of necessary functions.
Therefore, it is necessary to analyze techniques for ship operation, organize them, clarify their details and identify
the ship operation techniques.
Specifically, it is to carry out the study based on the steps shown below, and to clarify the characteristics of the
operator.

1) To clarify the role of the operator and necessary function in the system
The mariner’s encounter various maneuvering situation during the navigation, and it is their task to deal with these
appropriately to achieve safe navigation. In order to carry out this task, they require the competency to achieve the
necessary techniques. Thus, that competency is defined as mariner’s competency.

2)To clarify the characteristics of the process to achieve the required functions of an operator in the system and
limits of mariner’s competency
The characteristics of the process to achieve the required functions is to clarify the behavioral characteristics and
capabilities achieved limit. By the functions mariner must achieve are clarified as necessary techniques, and then
it is possible to decide about the techniques required in each ship handling situation and level to achieve those
necessary techniques. It is an analysis of behavioral characteristics to clarify the process of achieving the necessary
techniques. We can make clear that it is necessary for a constant condition to be met in order for functions to be
achieved by carrying out this analysis. In other words, it is possible to clarify mariner’s limit the achievement of
the necessary functions of the mariner’s.

Through discussion mentioned above, It is possible to rational summarize a variety of issues related to ship
operation. We can consider the specifications of the support system for extending the achievable range of
competency of operator. Support systems will be conceived that can expand the achievable scope of competency
of operator.

In this paper, we introduce an example of adapting the characteristic analysis on the development of the support
system for berthing maneuver using tugboats.
Firstly, we proposed a way of evaluating the competency to berthing maneuver under the wind. We carried out
numerical simulation and experiments using ship-handling simulator.

-1-
 2. NUMERICAL SIMULATION

Berthing abilities are decided by the combination with ship maneuvering characteristics and environmental
condition including wind and support system such as tug boat assisting system for berthing maneuver. From the
numerical simulation, we can estimate the berthing ability relating to physical condition without the human
characteristics. The accuracy of estimation on them decides the validity of capability of berthing. All of estimating
methods are explained in this chapter.

2.1 MATHEMATICAL MODEL

The ship motion is decided by the combination of ship maneuvering characteristics and external forces. The motion
equation is described based on the Newton formula shown by following formulas.
The maneuvering motion is decided by the combination of the longitudinal motion, lateral motion and turning
motion shown by (2-1) to (2-6). Left parts of formula (2-1) are inertia term and right parts show the external forces
including hydrodynamic forces acting on the hull, wind forces and tug boats forces shown.

(2-1)

m: mass of a ship, mx, my: added mass in x, y direction, Izz: mass moment of inertia of the ship, Jzz: added mass moment of the
inertia around the z axis, XYN: longitudinal force, lateral force and yaw moment. Suffixes H,P,W,T denote hull, propeller, wind
force, tug force.

The ship maneuvering characteristics decided by ship hull, rudder and propeller are mainly explained here. For
the estimation on the berthing maneuver, the estimation on the hydrodynamic forces acting on the hull, rudder and
propeller are very important and the accuracy decides the validity of motions. The hydrodynamic forces for the
berthing maneuver are expressed by the special differential equations on the motion with big swaying and rate of
turn. Formula (2-2) shows the longitudinal hydrodynamic force (X) acting on the hull. Formulas from (2-3) and
(2-4) show the equation relating to the lateral hydrodynamic force (Y) acting on the hull.

| | 0
(2-2)
| | 0
0
| | | | (2-3) (2-4)
0

Formulas from (2-5) to (2-6) show the equation relating to the hydrodynamic turning moment (N) acting on the
hull.

0
| | | | (2-5) (2-6)
0

2.2 WIND EFFECTS

The wind effects on the ship motion are decided by the shape of ship’s super structure. The discussion in this study
executes the LNG carrier with MOSS type and VLCC and other principal dimensions are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Principal dimensions of ship

Type of Vessel LNG VLCC
Loading condition Full load Full load Ballasted
LOA ( m ) 280.0 329.95 329.95
Breadth ( m ) 48.00 60.00 60.00
Depth ( m ) 26.50 30.30 30.30
Draft ( m ) 10.95 21.26 10.0
Trim ( m ) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Projected Area above Water-Line
Front View: A (m2) 1377.2 817.5 1119.8
Side View: B (m2) 7476.4 4066.0 7366.0

2.3 TUG BOAT’S FORCE EFFECTS

Tugboats make some effects as the external forces that accelerate ship motion. The motion is decided as the
function of tugboat’s position, pulling or pushing forces and their direction. In this study, we discuss the effects
for 2 kinds of tugboat arrangement for each ship that are case A and case B shown in figure 1.

-2-
(A) LNG:
In case of LNG, 4 tug boats are arranged for both cases. In case A, 3 tugboats are arranged on the alongside of the
hull and one tugboat is arranged on the aft end of vessels shown in figure 1-1. In case B, 4 tugboats are arranged
on the alongside of the hull shown in figure 1-1. Each tugboat has 3800HP as maximum thrust.

(B) VLCC:
In case A, 5 tugboats are arranged on the starboard side shown in figure 1-2. And loading condition was full
loaded. In case B, 4 tugboats are arranged on the starboard side shown in figure 1-2. And loading condition was
ballasted. Each tugboat has 3200HP as maximum thrust. And main engine was available.

##1:130.0m #1: 131.7m #1: 131.7m

#1: 130.0m
#2: 90.0m #2: 90.0m
#2: 120.0m
#2: 13.8m #3:-17.0m

#3: -120.0m #4: 73.5m #3: -73.5m

#3:-130.0m #5: 147.7m
#4: -130.0m #4: -147.7m
#4:-140.0m
Case A Case B Case A (Full load) Case B (Ballasted)
Fig. 1-1 – LNG Fig. 1 -2 – VLCC

Fig.1 Arrangements of tugboats

3. ESTIMATION ON THE BERTHING ABILITY UNDER WIND DISTURBANCE BY NUMERICAL

SIMULATION

In this chapter, the discussions on the ability of safe berthing maneuver are executed based on the theoretical
analysis. The numerical simulation on berthing maneuver is carried out to estimate the berthing ability concerning
the relation between wind force and controlling forces that are tugboats forces and their application. From this
study, we can estimate the berthing ability relating to physical condition except the handling characteristics of
human. In order to decide the conditions of the experiments in which human operates the own ship and tug boats
using ship handling simulator, we have to understand the difference of achieving level of berthing maneuver in
assumed condition. The numerical simulation under assumed condition let us know the difficulty of handling and
the important factors that decide the achievement level of handlings.

3.1 Assumption of numerical simulation

(A) Initial conditions
Initial conditions are as followings,
u = 0.0 longitudinal speed (m/sec.), v = 0.0 lateral speed (m/sec.), r=0.0 rate of turn (degree/sec.)

The assumed wind conditions are 12m/sec. Wind velocity was decided based on the standard for operation of the
berth. And wind directions were every 10 degrees from 0.0 to 360.0 degrees respectively.

(B) Concept of estimation on berthing ability -N moment by Tug

It is a main point to define the level of berthing ability based
on controllable forces and wind effects. It is necessary +NW
condition for achieving the objective maneuvering motion
that each force and moment induced by tugboats is greater
than ones induced by wind. This is necessary condition based
+NT
on dynamic condition. Next, we explain about the procedure
of the estimation on berthing ability using figure2. Prior to T1 +YT1
Jetty

the explanation of the relation between lateral force, moment -YW

l1 Yforce by Tug
due to tug forces(Yforce Tug, Nforce Tug) and wind(YW,NW), the
sign of force and moment and position of tug boat force are
defined as following, -l2
The sign of lateral force due to wind and tugboat tending right +YT2
ward is plus. The sign of moment with clockwise is plus. The T2
sign of forward distance to tug boat (YT1,YT2) from ship’s -NT2
gravity is plus.
Fig. 2 The force balance between wind and tug
boat

-3-
The lateral force by total tugboats are shown by following equation in figure 2,
(3-1)
The yawing moment by total tugboats are shown by following equation,
(3-2)
Where

n: number of tugboat, ln: distance to number n tugboat’s force point from center of ship’s gravity

One of important assumption to control the ship’s motion by operating the tugboats under wind disturbance is to
keep her heading parallel to the jetty. Following condition is basic requirement to achieve it.
0 (3-3)
The condition for keep her heading above mentioned is basic requirement to berthing the jetty and the residual
lateral force by tugboat can be used for berthing the jetty by inducing lateral movement. Furthermore, to make an
enough lateral control forces, it is necessary to choose the tugboat which can cancel a wind disturbance (YW, NW).
And then, the tugboat forces of T2 is the maximum.
(3-4)
Next, we decide the output of tugboat T1 by equation 3-5.
⁄ (3-5)
The residual lateral force that is used for pure lateral motion is defined by Y*force by Tug .
∗
(3-6)
As a result, following condition is necessary to operate the ship to the berth.
∗
(3-7)
The ratio between Y*force by Tug
and YW gives the margin for the berthing ability, so the ratio shown by following
formula is called tugboat force margin K,
∗ ⁄
Tugboat force margin: (3-8)
If the margin is less than 1.0, berthing maneuver cannot be attained. If the margin exceeds 1.0, berthing maneuver
may be attained as the dynamic condition. However, usually human cannot use the control force optimally.
Therefore margin has to exceed 1.0 to use the force actually. It is important issue how much margin is necessary
for the standard mariners to handle the ship to berth the jetty by using tugboats safely. It is the necessity to examine
the necessary margin by using the ship handling simulator. Prior to the experiments using simulator, the possibility
of berthing has to be discussed by applying numerical simulation on all of assumed condition.
The results of numerical simulation give us the theoretical information as the systematic condition. As a result, we
can estimate the possibility on safe handling theoretically and systematically and then we can select the cases that
we carry out the experiments using simulator. Most important issue of this method is that we can estimate the
possibility for all of situation, not only case study using simulator.

3.2 The results of numerical simulation

In this section, the results of numerical simulation are shown for the following condition,
1) Wind speed: 12.0 m/sec (based on the standard for operation of the berth)
2) Wind direction: The severe condition for berthing jetty is the wind from starboard and port side.
3) Tugboat arrangement: Case A and case B

The results of numerical simulation show in table 2. The table 2 indicates the result of wind speed 12m/s.

3.2.1 The results of numerical simulation of LNG

The margins in all of condition are above 1.0. In case A, minimum margin is 2.48 under the wind from 60 degree.
In case B, minimum margin is 3.38 under the wind from 60 degree.

3.2.2 The results of numerical simulation of VLCC

The margins in all of conditions are above 1.0 and each tug arrangement shows the difference. In case A, minimum
margin is 4.17 under the wind from 100 degree. In case B, minimum margin is 1.74 under the wind from 100
degree. This vessel shows that the wind from 100 degree makes most severe condition.

-4-
 Table 2 The results of numerical simulation
Table 2-1 LNG
Case A
relative wind direction
20 40 60 80 90 100 120 140 160
Margin 9.29 3.60 2.48 2.66 2.64 2.63 2.66 3.33 11.09

Case B
relative wind direction
20 40 60 80 90 100 120 140 160
Margin 12.58 4.92 3.38 3.56 3.56 3.60 3.74 4.74 15.32

Table 2-2 VLCC

Case A
relative wind direction
20 40 60 80 90 100 120 140 160
Margin 19.60 7.84 5.55 4.28 4.20 4.17 4.95 6.45 12.62

Case B
relative wind direction
20 40 60 80 90 100 120 140 160
Margin 6.80 3.01 2.20 1.96 1.80 1.74 1.90 2.43 4.88

4. EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ON THE BERTHING ABILITY USING SHIP HANDLING

SIMULATOR
In previous chapter, we define the margin of tugboats force against the wind force. The margin defines the
capability to berth the jetty under wind effects. If the defined factor that is tugboat force margin is bigger than 1.0 ,
the handling to berth the jetty under the wind disturbance can be done from viewpoint of physical condition.
However mariner cannot handle the ship in actual situation same as the optimal control by physical phenomena,
mariner needs some margin beyond physical margin mentioned above. It is the necessary margin of tugboat force
in actual situation. In order to examine the actual necessary margin, the experiments using ship handling simulator
have been carried out in Ship Maneuvering Simulator Center in Tokyo Univ. of Marine Science and Technology.
In this chapter, the experimental conditions on the berthing maneuver using simulator are explained.

4.1 Handling condition

4.1.1 LNG
(A) Initial Condition
The initial condition on the starting the handling are shown figure 3-1 and any other condition as following,
Maximum tugboat thrust: 3800 HP / each tugboat
Initial ships posture: the heading is same as the jetty and position is 40 m off the jetty.
Initial ships motion: longitudinal and lateral speed and rate of turn is stopped

(B) Necessary condition

Lateral speed at berthing should be less than 10 cm/sec. Maximum moving speed during maneuvering should be
less 20 cm/sec..

4.1.2 VLCC
(A) Initial Condition
The initial condition on the starting the handling are shown figure 3-2 and any other condition as following,
Maximum tugboat thrust: 3200 HP / each tugboat

Case A (number of tugboats was 5 tug boats):

Loading condition: Full load Initial position: 1.5 miles from the south end of the berth.
Initial ships motion: ship’s speed 5.5konts and heading was 72. Maine engine telegraph mode was d.slow
ahead.

-5-
 Fig.3-1 LNG Fig.3-2 VLCC
Fig.3 The relation between an initial position and sea berth

Case B(number of tugboats was 4 tug boats):

Loading condition: ballasted load
Initial ships posture: the heading is not parallel with the jetty and position is 200 m off the jetty.
Initial ships motion: longitudinal and lateral speed and rate of turn is stopped

(C) Necessary condition

Lateral speed at berthing should be less than 5 cm/sec.
Maximum moving speed during maneuvering should be less 20
cm/sec..

4.2 Information for handling

Mariners handled the ship including operation of tugboats by
using following information;
Mariners could get the visual information projected on the screen
in the simulator and birds eye view showing own ship shape and Photo 1 Handling situation (Front view)
the jetty. Photo 1 shows the handling situation, mariner locates at
the wing of wheel house and observes the scenery projected on
the screen and bird eye view shown by indicator. Photo 2 shows
bird eye view for Case A. Furthermore they can get the precise
motion information by observing the instruments showing
approaching speed and position installed in the wheel house.
Photo 3 shows the information indicated on the instruments of
approaching speed and position installed in the wheel house.
As a result, following information are available,
1) ship posture
The distance to the jetty from bow, mid-ship and stern: The
longitudinal deviation between mid-ship and the planed
berthing point on the jetty, heading direction
2) ship motion Photo 2 Sample of bird’s-eye view
Lateral velocity at bow, mid-ship and stern, Longitudinal ship’s (LNG, Case A)
velocity, Rate of turn Distance to the Approach
longitudi longitudi
4.3 Communication between the tugboats
Mariner can communicated each tugboat directly by using walkie- bow bow
talkie. The name of each tugboat is #1 to #4 from tugboat arranged
at port bow to sternward.
Mid.ship Mid.ship
The level of tug force is informed by using level of full, half, slow
and stop and the direction is shown by the time on a clock.
stern stern
4.4 Conditions of simulator experiments
Table 2-1 to 2-2 show the relation between the margin of tugboat Photo 3 Information display

-6-
force and handling condition. The shading conditions are applied for the experiments using simulator. The
experiments carried out not only the severe condition that are small margin but also safer condition that are
condition of bigger margin. The objectives of experiments are defined as following;
1) To examine the relation between the achieving level and the defined margin.
2) To examine the necessary level of the margin

In order to confirm the relation between them based on theoretical physical condition and actual condition, it is
not enough experiments to carry out only severe condition. If we try to confirm the relation between them we have
to estimate the actual handling results for all of condition. If we carry out only severe condition, we can estimate
only the results of handling we examined. They are only case studies. In order to estimate all of condition
universally, the reasons of the difficulty have to be clarified. It is why we carried out the experiment cover the
wide range of the margin.

5. RESULTS OF EVALUATION OF THE TUGBOAT MARGIN

Three professional harbor pilots and Over 10 licensed mariner have joined the experiment. Each pilot and mariner
carried out the handling on about 50 cases.
Figure4 shows the relation between the margin and the lateral speed and the blue colored shading area indicates
the allowable speed for berthing.

Figure 4 shows the relation between the margin and lateral speed and shading area indicates the allowable speed
for berthing. Horizontal axis indicates the margin and vertical axis indicates final approaching lateral speed. The
discs, triangle and square symbols indicate the condition of wind. We can recognize that as the margin becomes
bigger, final approaching speed concentrated into the allowable level. Sufficient margin is necessary, in case of
smaller margin such as 1 to 3, many cases show the fault. The tug boat margin gives a good account of achievement
level of the berthing maneuver. And we can confirm that it is proper index to express berthing ability. The margin
is an index to unify relating factors such as hull condition, wind speed, wind direction and so on, decided berthing
ability. From this result, sufficient margin were necessary for safe handling. And It shows minimum required
margin is over 2.0. When we consider the allowance of tug boat force, margin over 4.0 desirable.

0.4 0.4
:Non disturbance
:132 °,12m/s :177 °,12m/s
:312 °,12m/s :267 °,12m/s
lateral speed(m/s)
lateral speed(m/s)

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
margin
margin
Fig.4-1 Result of LNG Fig.4-2 Result of VLCC

Fig.4 Relation between the margin and the lateral speed

6. DISCUSSION ON HUMAN CHAR ACTERRISTIC ON THE BERTHING MANEUVER USING TUG

BOATS

(A) Relation between the chage of lateral speed and tug margin
As we recognized the analyzed results of chapter 5, mariner can control the ship by using tugboat force as 2.0
times of calculated margin if they have sufficient techniques.

Figure 5-1 to 5-3 shows the relation between the change of remaining distance and the change of lateral speed for
three kinds of the margin. Horizontal axis indicates the change of remaining distance and origin is final destination
that is berthing point and vertical axis indicates the change of lateral speed and positive speed indicates the
approaching speed to the jetty. When the situation locates on the positive speed, the situation moves to left ward
that is approaching to the jetty. On the contrary, when the situation locates on the negative speed, the situation

-7-
moves to right ward that is leaving from the jetty. When the speed changes to negative from positive value, line
shows counterclockwise circles.
In case of small margin, they show many circles. It show mariner changed speed frequently and the difficult
handling. In case of bigger margin, most of line headed to left ward without circles. It shows ship was approaching
constantly and easy handling that is safer handling.

The above discussion concerning the results of handling inform us when we consider the difficulty of handling,
bigger margin induce the safer and easer handling. The sufficient margin is necessary to keep the safer handling
and safer berthing.

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4
margin 1.69 margin 2.56 margin 4.05
0.3 0.3 0.3
lateral speed (m/s)

lateral speed (m/s)

0.2

lateral speed (m/s)

0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0 0 0
−0.1 −0.1 −0.1
−0.2 Start point Start point
−0.2 −0.2 Start point
−0.3 −0.3 −0.3
−0.4 −0.4 −0.4
−0.5 −0.5 −0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
remaining distance (m) remaining distance (m) remain distance (m)

Fig.5-1 Margin 1.69 Fig.5-2 Margin 2.56 Fig.5-3 Margin 4.05

Fig.5 Relation between the change of residual distance and the change of lateral speed

(B) Relation between number of control target and maneuvering motion

In this section, we discuss the influence that a number of control target gives for berthing maneuver. As a result of
analyzed it about relations between operation contents and maneuvering motion, It became clear that the control
of the approaching speed was stable by the number of control target decreasing. Figure 6-1, 6-2 shows the relation
between the change of remaining distance and change of rate of turn, lateral speed and lateral force induced by all
tug boats. Horizontal axis in both figure (a) indicates the change of deviation of the heading angle. Vertical axis
indicates the rate of turn. Horizontal axis in both figure (b) indicates the change of remaining distance and origin
is final destination that is berthing point. Vertical axis indicates the change of lateral speed and negative speed
indicates the approaching speed to the jetty. The left side vertical axis indicate lateral force induced by all tug boats.
The broken line in each figure indicates the deviation of heading angle is less than 2 degrees.
Figure 6-1 is the example that make adjust the deviation of heading angle in the early stage just after a start. Figure
6-2 is the example that deviation of heading angle and the lateral maneuvering motion control simultaneously until
just before a jetty. The difference in these two handling way appears as a change of the lateral speed. As a result
of shown it in figure 6-2(b), it is clear that the fluctuation of the lateral speed is big. This reason is the output of
the tug boats is frequently changed. In this handling example, the operator controlled two maneuverong motion
such as heading and lateral motion at the same time and complicated operation of tug boats was necessary. As a
result, it is estimate that the operator, operation to change the tugboat output frequently. As a result of analysis, it
became clear that when the control intends for one maneuvering motion, the operator can realize control of the
stable lateral speed. In other words, the function of heading keeping using the tugboat becomes effective on behalf
of a ship operator as a function of the support systems. In addition, the reason why an operator operates the tugboat
output frequently, the operator cannot decide appropriate controlling force and the order value of each tugboat to
maintain target motion. As a result of analysis, it is effective that the support system has a function to perform
information indication to decide controlling force and thrust distribution for an operator to maintain target motion.

(C) Relation between Operation contents of tug boats and stopping at berthing point
In this section, we show the analysis result about relations between operation of tugboats and the maeuvering
motion to stop at the berthing point. Figure 7 shows the relation among the change of remaining distance, the
change of lateral speed and lateral force induced by all tug boats. Horizontal axis indicates the change of remaining
distance and origin is final destination that is berthing point. Right vertical axis indicated the lateral speed and
negative speed indicated the approaching speed to the jetty. Left vertical axis indicated lateral force induced by all
tug boats and negative forces indicated the move the hull to the jetty.
In case of MARINER A, he was not able to satisfy berthing speed, because of an operation timing of the braking
was late. In case of MARINER B, although we braked it early, he was not able to satisfy berthing speed, because
of magnitude of controlling forces is insufficient. In case of MARINER C and D, we can recognize that the
tendency of change of the lateral speed is unique. When the situation locates on the negative speed, the situation
moves to left ward that is approaching to the jetty.

-8-
 less than 2°

less than 2°

remaining distance

(a) Reration between deviation of heading (b) Reration among residual distance and
angle and rate of turn lateral speed and lateral force induced
by all tug boats

Fig. 6-1 Adjust the deviation of heading angle at the early stage

less than 2°

less than 2°

remaining distance

(a) Reration between deviation of heading (b) Reration among residual distance and
angle and rate of turn lateral speed and lateral force induced by
all tug boats
Fig. 6-2 Adjust the deviation of heading angle at the not early stage

Fig.6 Relation between number of control target and maneuvering motion

remaining distance
Fig. 8-1 Lateral force induced by tug

remaining distance
remaining distance Fig. 8-2 The level of tug force and direction

Fig. 8 Relation between the change of remaining distance

Fig. 7 Relation between the change of remaining and contents of tug operation
distance and the change of lateral speed

-9-
On the contrary, when the situation locates on positive speed, the situation moves to right ward that is leaving from
the jetty. When the speed changes to negative from positive value, line shows clockwise circles. In case of
MARINER C and D, they show many circles. It show mariner C and D changed speed frequently near the berthing
point.
Appropriate coping for this human characteristic in stopping maneuver at berthing point, It is effective to show a
start timing of the braking and the magnitude of controlling force depend on maneuvering motion to a ship
operator.
(C) Characteristics of Contents of tug operation
Figure 8 shows the relation between remaining distance and contents of tug operation. In this paper, the typical
operation results were shows. Figure 8-1 shows the relation between the remaining distance and lateral force
induced by tug boats. Horizontal axis indicates the remaining distance and vertical axis indicates lateral force
induced by tug boats. The upper section indicated lateral force induced by the tugs forward arranged from the
center of gravity. The lower section indicated lateral force induced by the tugs sternward arranged from the center
of gravity. Figure 8-2 shows the relation between the remaining distance and the level of tug force and tug force
direction. The solid line indicated level of tug force and broken line indicated command of tug force direction.
And the changing tendency of the lateral force which induce by forward tug that is arranged from the center of
gravity, and the lateral force which induce by sternward tug were almost the same. This result is common to those
who joined the experiment. These are operations for not generating the moment induced by operation of tug boats.
Furthermore, the order of the level of tug force and direction about #1, #5, and #2, #4 was the same. Above result
shows that the mariner could not use three or more tug boats effectively. In order to utilize all the tug boats
effectively, it is necessary to develop a support system.

7. NECESSARY FUNCTION AND SYSTEM CONSTITUTION OF THE SYSTEM

In previous chapter, we clarified human characteristic on the berthing maneuver using tug boats through the
simulator study. It is necessary for the sharing function of the support system to consider a characteristic of operator
and machine. The function of the support system needs the function that an operator compensates for weak task.
The necessary function of the support system which we decided based on the characteristic of the ship operator, it
is shared the controller and an information display. Figure 9 shows the conceptual diagram of support system. We
show the summary of the function of the subsystem as follows. The controller is comprised of input device and
the calculation unit of controlling force.
(A) Information Display
The information display, displayed information collected through sensors such as ship's position, maneuvering
motion, rate of turn and so on. And provide available information for the decision making of the ship operator
directly.
1) Timing of the order
2) magnitude of controlling force
3) operation contents of the tugboat
4) ship's figure with velocity vector and so on.
Information display device provides a plurality information that is required on the berthing maneuvering using
tugboats. For example, a ship position, ship's motion condition, the operating condition of the tug boats and so on.
Figure 10 shows the one part of information display. This information informs information to decide operation
time of the braking to an operator. Horizontal axis indicates the change of remaining distance and origin is final
destination that is berthing point. Right vertical axis indicated the lateral speed. Left vertical axis indicated lateral
force induced by all tug boats. The ● mark in a figure shows ship’s speed. The broken line shows a deceleration
characteristic of the ship’s speed corresponding to the breaking power induce by tug boats.
The operator can decide control force and timing exactly to stop at the berth using this information.
(B) Controller
The order item which a ship operator inputs using input device is three kinds of heading angle, the resultant
direction of the controlling forces and magnitude of controlling force . To liberate an operator from task to decide
the operation contents of plural tugboats by the adoption of this input procedures.
-Input device
1) ordered heading angle
2) ordered direction of the controlling forces
3) ordered magnitude of controlling force
- Calculating unit of controlling force
1) Heading angle controller
2) Tug thrust allocation controller
3) Command device to tugboats
(C) Operator
The role of an operator berthing maeuver using this support system, it is the decision of the contents of the input
item and the monitoring of the maneuvering condition.

- 10 -
 Information Display
1) Timing of the
command Ship’ position & condition of maneuvering motion (speed, heading angle, rate
of turn)
2) magnitude of
controlling force
3) Operation
contents of the Contents of command
tugboat to the tugboats
4) nautical charts Command
5) etc.

Input device Calculating unit of

1) ordered heading controlling force
angle 1) Heading angle
Operator 2) ordered direction of controller Each tug
the controlling 2) Tug thrust allocation boats Own ship
forces controller
3) ordered magnitude 3) Command device to
of controlling force tugboats

Controller

Fig.9 Conceptual diagram of support system

Breaking power
Breaking power Wind force Tug boats
20%
50% Output

Ship’s speed (m/s)

Tug boats Output

Breaking power
80%
(ton)

remaining distance (m)

Fig.10 Sample of information display

8. CONCLUSION
Currently some support system has been developed to enhance the safety and to promote efficiency in ship
handling. However, the development of several support system is “seeds oriented” and not “needs oriented.” It has
not been developed based on the function an operator needs.
In the present study, it showed the development procedure of the support system. Most importantly, it is to
accurately understand the characteristics of ship operator‘s. Specifically, it is to carry out the study based on the
steps shown below, and to clarify the characteristics of the operator.
1) To clarify the role of the operator and necessary function in the system
2) To clarify the characteristics of the process to achieve the required functions of an operator in the system
and limits of mariner's competency

In this point of view, this research examined effective ways of development support system for berthing maneuver
using tug boats. Following points has been clarified through this study.
1. Margin of tugboat force defined in this study is important index that indicates the safety level of berthing
maneuver under the wind disturbance. And this index to unify relating factors such as hull condition, wind
speed, wind direction and so on, decided berthing ability.

- 11 -
2. According to the results of simulator used experiments, mariner having standard competency need the margin
over 4.0. Then he can achieve the berthing within allowable lateral speed at berthing the jetty.
3. Ship operators are weak in controlling plural maneuvering motion at the same time.
4. Ship operators are weak in deciding magnitude of controlling forces to maintain the target speed and the
appropriate thrust allocation of each tugboat in a short time.
5. Ship operators are weak in deciding magnitude of controlling forces and an operation timing, to stop at final
destination that is berthing point in a short time.
6. Ship operators cannot use over three tug boats effectively.

The above discussion concerning the results of handling informs us when we consider the difficulty of handling,
bigger margin leads the safer and easier handling. The sufficient margin is necessary to keep the safer handling
and safer berthing. And we designed a controller and the contents of the information display based on
Characteristic of ship operator. In other words, each of the function and the specification there is an enough
theoretical grounds.

As the next step, currently, we are going to verify the prototype. For verification results, we will report at the next
meeting.

REFERENCES

[1] H. Kobayashi, Use of Simulators in Assessment, Learning, and Teaching of Mariners, WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs, Vol.4, No.1, World Maritime University,pp57～75, April, 2005

[2] A.ISHIBASHI and H. KOBAYASHI, A Study on the Evaluation of Ship Handling Techniques of Marine Pilot,
Proceedings of 7th Asian Conference on Maritime System and Safety Research 2007, MOERI/KIOST, August 17-
18, pp.49-59.

[3] A.ISHIBASHI and H. KOBAYASHI, A Study on the Evaluation of Berthing maneuver under wind
disturbance, Proceedings of International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM
2009), Panama City, August 17-20, pp.C15-1-10.

[4] A.ISHIBASHI and H. KOBAYASHI, Analysis on the Berthing Maneuver by using Tug Boats, Proceedings
of 13th Asian Conference on Maritime System and Safety Research 2013, MOERI/KIOST, August 8-9, pp.74-83.

- 12 -