Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:07:35.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Bridge Alerts on Navigating Officers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2019

Lovro Maglić  and
Damir Zec
Lovro Maglić*
Affiliation:
(Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, Croatia)
Damir Zec
Affiliation:
(Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, Croatia)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New navigation-related technologies and complex ships' systems are associated with a considerable amount of information and alerts on navigational bridges. Each alert triggers a process conducted by the Officer Of the Watch (OOW), which includes data collection and interpretation, decision making, as well as appropriate actions. In the case of too many alerts or poorly managed alerts, the workload of the OOW may significantly increase, and situational awareness may be compromised, increasing the risk of errors. The main goal of this research is to analyse OOW actions triggered by the alerts. The research methods included an experiment on a bridge simulator with experienced officers, a questionnaire survey and a series of interviews. The main outcomes encompass the frequency of the alerts and the number and the processing times of single actions conducted upon an alert. The results indicate that, on average, during one watch, an OOW spends 22·4 minutes conducting 64 actions triggered by 16 alerts. However, officers consider 45% of the alerts as over-prioritised and distracting at the moment of their notification.

Keywords

Human ElementWorkloadMan Machine InterfaceBridge
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 421 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baldauf, M., Benedict, K., Wilske, E., Grundevik, P. and Klepsvik, J.O. (2008). Combination of Navigational and VDR based Information to Enhance Alert Management. International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 2(3), 245–251.Google Scholar
Crowch, T. (2013). Navigating the Human Element. Kent, United Kingdom. MLB Publishing.Google Scholar
Dhillon, B.S. (2007). Human Reliability and Error in Transportation Systems. London, UK. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Earthy, J. (2006). Raising the alarm. Horizons, 15, 10–11.Google Scholar
Embrey, D. (2006). Development of a Human Cognitive Workload Assessment Tool. Human Reliability Associates, Dalton Lancashire, MCA Final Report.Google Scholar
Furuno Electric. (2010). Operator's Manual, Electronic Chart Display and Information System - Instructions for use with Autopilots. Furuno Electric.Google Scholar
Goel, P., Datta, A. and Mannan, M.S. (2017). Industrial alarm systems: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 50(A), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2003). Issues to be considered when introducing new technology on board ship. MSC/Circ.1091. London, International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2007). Adoption of the revised performance standards for integrated navigation systems (INS). MSC.252(83). London, International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2009). Code on Alerts and Indicators. Resolution A.1021(26). London, International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2010). Adoption of performance standards for bridge alert management (BAM). Resolution MSC.302(87). London, International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2013). Development of an e-navigation strategy implementation plan. NAV 59/6. London, International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
Kongsberg Maritime. (2014). K-Sim, ERS L11 5L90MC – VLCC, Version MC90-V, Operator's Manual. Kongsberg Maritime.Google Scholar
Kongsberg Norcontrol. (1997). Cargo Handling Trainer CHT2000-VLCC-II, User's Manual. Kongsberg Norcontrol AS.Google Scholar
Krystosik-Gromadzińska, A. (2018). Ergonomic assessment of selected workstations on a merchant ship. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 24(1), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kum, S., Furusho, M., Duru, O. and Satir, T. (2007). Mental Workload of the VTS Operators by Utilising Heart Rate. TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 1(2), 145–151.Google Scholar
Maglić, L., Zec, D. and Frančić, V. (2016). Model of the Adaptive Information System on a Navigational Bridge. The Journal of Navigation, 69(6), 1247–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mišković, D., Bielić, T. and Čulin, J. (2018). Impact of Technology on Safety as Viewed by Ship Operators. Transactions on Maritime Science, 7(1), 51–58.10.7225/toms.v07.n01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motz, F., Hockel, S., Baldauf, M. and Benedict, K. (2009). Development of a Concept for Bridge Alert Management. International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 3(1), 61–66.Google Scholar
Nachreiner, F., Nickel, P. and Meyer, I. (2006). Human factors in process control systems: The design of human–machine interfaces. Safety Science, 44(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Øvergård, K. I. (2015). Human Error: Causality and the Confusion of Normative and Descriptive Accounts of Human Performance. In Fostervold, K. I., Johnsen, S. Å. K., Rydstedt, L. and Watten, R. G. (Eds.), Creating Sustainable Work Environments. Lysaker, Norway: Norwegian Society for Ergonomics and Human Factors, C5-6–C5-10.Google Scholar
Rothblum, A. R., Wheal, D., Withington, S., Shappell, S. A., Wiegman, D. A., Boehm, W. and Chaderijan, M. (2002). Human Factors in Incident Investigation and analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Human Factors in Offshore Operations (HFW2002). Groton, CT: U.S. Coast Guard Research & Development Center.Google Scholar
Rowley, I. (2006). Development of guidance for the mitigation of human error in automated ship-borne maritime systems. Project Report RP545 MSA10/9/210 for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Qinetiq.Google Scholar
Transas MIP (2012). Multi-functional display (version 2.00.320), ECDIS User Manual. Transas MIP ltd.Google Scholar
Transas MIP (2012). Navi-Trainer 5000 (version 5.25), Navigational Bridge. Transas MIP ltd.Google Scholar
Tzannatos, E. S. (2004). GMDSS False Alerts: A Persistent Problem for the Safety of Navigation at Sea. The Journal of Navigation, 57(1), 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar