Safe vessel operations – the tacit knowledge of navigators

• Autorzy: Dreyer L. O.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.17.03.09

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The collision regulations include several qualitative terms without providing guidance as to how these terms could be understood in quantitative terms. These terms must therefore be interpreted by navigators, which poses a problem for autonomous ships. Extend the knowledge of how navigators interpret the collision regulations, with a specific focus on how they interpret the rule covering the requirement to proceed at a safe speed. Qualitative study based on interviews of a convenience sample of eight Norwegian navigators. Data was analysed with systematic text condensation. Navigators characterise safe speed as a speed in which they have control. Navigators do not look at different factors mentioned in the collision regulations in isolation, but within the context of the situation. Determining the safe speed of a vessel is more complicated than made out in the literature. As autonomous ships will have to cooperate with conventional vessels, their programming must include the knowledge of how the collision regulations are interpreted by human navigators.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

collision avoidance; navigators' behavior; safe speed determination; maritime autonomous surface ships; understanding the colregs; expert interview; work-as-done; work-as-imagined

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 17 No. 3
• Strony: 579--586
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 25 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Dreyer L. O.

• Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Haugesund, Rogaland, Norway

Bibliografia

• 1. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, Safety and Shipping Review 2022. 2022.
• 2. Norwegian Maritime Authority, Live ulykkesstatistikk. 2022.
• 3. IMO, Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, (COLREGs), I.M. Organization, Editor. 1972: London.
• 4. Taylor, D.H., UNCERTAINTY IN COLLISION AVOIDANCE MANOEUVRING. Journal of Navigation, 1990. 43: p. 238-245. - doi:10.1017/S0373463300009577.
• 5. Cannell, W.P., Collision Avoidance as a Game of Co-ordination. Journal of Navigation, 1981. 34(2): p. 220-239. - doi:10.1017/S0373463300021330.
• 6. Dreyer, L.O., Applicability of Historic AIS and Weather Data in Autononomous Determination of Safe Speed. Journal of Navigation, 2022.
• 7. Kavanagh, J., When is a Ship’s Speed Safe?: The Role of Safe Speed in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Maritime Studies, 2001. 2001(116): p. 11-29. - doi:10.1080/07266472.2001.10878623.
• 8. Cockcroft, A.N. and J.N.F. Lameijer, A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules. 7th Edition ed. 2012: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• 9. Rutkowski G.: Determining Ship's Safe Speed and Best Possible Speed for Sea Voyage Legs. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 3, doi:10.12716/1001.10.03.07, pp. 425-430, 2016
• 10. Madsen, A.N., M.V. Aarset, and O.A. Alsos, Safe and efficient maneuvering of a Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) during encounters at sea: A novel approach. Maritime Transport Research, 2022. 3: p. 100077. - doi:10.1016/j.martra.2022.100077.
• 11. IMO, Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. 1972.
• 12. IMO. Women in Maritime. 2022 18/12/2022]; Available from: https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/technicalcooperation/pages/womeninmaritime.aspx.
• 13. Patton, M.Q., Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. 1990, Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. 532-532.
• 14. Dworkin, S. L. (2012). "Sample Size Policy for Qualitative Studies Using In-Depth Interviews." Archives of Sexual Behavior 41(6): 1319-1320. - doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6.
• 15. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London, Sage.
• 16. Malterud, K., Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 2012. 40(8): p. 795-805. - doi:10.1177/1403494812465030.
• 17. Hagen, J., B.L. Knizek, and H. Hjelmeland, Mental Health Nurses' Experiences of Caring for Suicidal Patients in Psychiatric Wards: An Emotional Endeavor. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 2017. 31(1): p. 31-37. - doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2016.07.018.
• 18. Erstad, E., M.S. Lund, and R. Ostnes, Navigating through Cyber Threats, A Maritime Navigator’s Experience, in International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Tareq Ahram and W. Karwowski, Editors. 2022, AHFE Open Access: New York. p. 84-91. - doi:10.54941/ahfe1002205.
• 19. Dreyer, L. O. (2021). Safe Speed for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships – The Use of Automatic Identification System Data. Paper presented at European Safety and Reliability Conference, Angers, France. https://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789811820168/pdf/200.pdf - doi:10.3850/978-981-18-2016-8_200-cd.
• 20. Dekker, S., Resilience engineering: Chronicling the emergence of confused consensus. 2012. p. 77-92. - doi:10.1201/9781315605685-11.
• 21. Rasmussen, J., Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Safety Science, 1997. 27(2): p. 183-213. - doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0.
• 22. Danielsen, B.-E., et al., “Seafarers should be navigating by the stars”: barriers to usability in ship bridge design. 2022. - doi:10.1007/s10111-022-00700-8.
• 23. Ahvenjärvi S.: The Human Element and Autonomous Ships. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 3, doi:10.12716/1001.10.03.18, pp. 517-521, 2016.
• 24. Hoffman, R.R. and G. Lintern, Eliciting and Representing the Knowledge of Experts, in The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. 2006, Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, US. p. 203-222. - doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816796.012.
• 25. de Vries, L., Work as Done? Understanding the Practice of Sociotechnical Work in the Maritime Domain. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2017. 11(3): p. 270-295. - doi:10.1177/1555343417707664.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).