Advertisement

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 439–454 | Cite as

Shared pilot passage plan and navigational safety during pilotage

  • Jahn Viggo Rønningen
  • Kjell Ivar Øvergård
Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

Navigating in confined waters with a pilot aboard requires that the pilot’s intention and plan is understood by all present on the bridge. The present study investigates the effect of having a detailed route plan and monitoring it in the context of pilotage. The aim was to see how the presence of a shared pilot passage plan in the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) affects the identification and recovery from navigational errors made by a pilot. Twenty participants, 10 with a shared route plan and 10 without, participated as navigators in a simulator scenario involving pilotage in the Oslofjord. Participants were bachelor students in nautical science. The navigation scenarios involved the intentional error by the pilot just before a predefined way point. Three measurements of relevance to navigational safety were recorded: (1) the time it took the participant to express concern, (2) the time it took the participant to correct the error (‘time to recovery’), and (3) the number of groundings. The study revealed that time to express concern and time to recovery were significantly much shorter for the group with a shared pilot passage plan presented in ECDIS than for the group without such a plan. Providing a bridge team with a shared pilot passage plan in ECDIS during pilotage might improve the ability to identify and correct navigational errors.

Keywords

Pilotage Safety Pilot passage plan Human error Error recovery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript. We are also grateful to Thomas Førlie at the University College of Southeast Norway for providing valuable assistance during the data collection.

References

  1. AIBN (2010a) Federal Kivalina - IMO no. 9205885 Grounding at Årsundøya, Norway, 6 OCTOBER 2008. Kjeller, Norway: Accident Investigation Board Norway. Available at: http://www.aibn.no/Sjofart/Rapporter/2010-01-eng
  2. AIBN (2010b) Report on Marine Accident Crete Cement – IMO no. 9037161, Grounding at Aspond Island in the Oslo fjord, Norway, on 19. November 2008. Kjeller Norway: Accident Investigation Board Norway and Bahamas Maritime Authority Marine Accident Report. Available at: http://www.aibn.no/Sjofart/Rapporter/2010-04-eng
  3. ATSB (2015). Grounding of Maersk Garonne. ATSB Transport Safety Report 219-MO-2015-002. Available at: Available at: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5771696/mo-2015-002-final-report.pdf
  4. Benedict K, Kirchhoff M, Gluch M, Fischer S, Schaub M, Baldauf M (2016) Simulation-augmented methods for safe and efficient manoeuvres in harbour areas. TransNav, Int J on Mar Nav and Saf Sea Trans 10(2):193–201Google Scholar
  5. Blom E (2007) Is the pilot a part of the bridge team? Gard News 185 February/April 2007. Available at: http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/51708/is-the-pilot-part-of-the-bridge-team
  6. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, New JsserseyGoogle Scholar
  7. DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR (2009) Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 94(2):535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drouin CP, Heath CR (2009). The pilotage paradigm: The need for a paradigm shift. Seaways October 2009Google Scholar
  9. Fisher RA (1922) On the interpretation of X 2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. J R Stat Soc 85(1):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D, DeWaard J (2015) Research methods in the social sciences, 8th edn. New York, NY, Worth PublishersGoogle Scholar
  11. Gard (2014) Pilotage. Gard AS. Available at: http://www.gard.no/Content/73002/Pilotage
  12. Gard (2011) Communication in pilot passage planning. Insight 200, Nov2010/Jan2011. Available at: http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/8899355/communication-in-pilotage-passage-planning
  13. Gauss B (2008) Evaluation von Situational Risk Assessment Systemen-Entwicklung eines Rahmenkonzepts und Demonstration seiner Anwendbarkeit im Berech der Schiffsführung. PhD-Thesis Institut für Psykologie und Arbeitswissenschaft, Technische Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauss B, Kersandt D (2005) NARIDAS-Navigational Risk Detection and Assessment System for the Ship’s Bridge. In M. Mohammiadian (ed.) Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (Vol. 2, pp. 612–617). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  15. Hederstrom, HG (2015). Bridge organisation for safe and effective operations. Gard AS. Available at http://www.gard.no/Content/20861802/Article%20Gard_CSMART_Hederstrom.pdf [last checked 2017–31-01]
  16. Hederstrom H, Kersandt D, Burkhard M (2012) Task-oriented structure of the navigation process and quality control of its properties by a nautical task management monitor (ntmm). Eur J Nav 10(3), December 2012Google Scholar
  17. IMO (2006) Resolution MSC.232 (82) Adoption of the revised performance standards for electronic chart display and information systems (ECDIS)Google Scholar
  18. Lappalainen J, Kunnaala V, Tapaninen U (2014) Present pilotage practices in Finland. WMU J Mari Aff 13(1):77–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol 85(2):273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maxwell SE, Delaney HD (2004) Designing experiments and analysing data, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  21. Nazir S, Sorensen LJ, Øvergård KI, Manca D (2015) Impact of training methods on distributed situation awareness of industrial operators. Safety Sci 73:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NTSB (2008). Allision of Bahamas-registered tankship M/V Kition with Interstate Highway 10 Bridge Pier, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 10, 2007. Marine Accident Report NTSB/MAR-08/03. Washington DC. Available at: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0803.pdf
  23. NTSB (2009) Allision of Hong Kong-Registered Containership M/V Cosco Busan with the Delta Tower of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco, California, November 7, 2007. Marine Accident Report NTSB/MAR-09/01. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0901.pdf
  24. Nuutinen M, Norros L (2009) Core task analysis in accident investigation: analysis of maritime accidents in piloting situations. Cogn Tech Work 11(2):129–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Øvergård KI, Bjørkli CA, Hoff T, Røed BK (2010) Control strategies used by experienced marine navigators: observation of verbal conversations during navigation training. Cogn Tech Work 12:163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Øvergård KI, Nielsen AR, Nazir S, Sorensen LJ (2015) Assessing navigational teamwork through the situational correctness and relevance of communication. Proc Manufacturing 3:2589–2596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saner LD, Bolstad CA, Gonzalez C, Cuevas HM (2010) Predicting shared situation awareness in teams: a case of differential SA requirements. Proc of the Hum Fac Ergonom Soc Ann Meet 54:314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith-Jentsch KA, Cannon-Bowers JA, Tannenbaum SI, Salas E (2008) Guided team self-correction impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Gr Res 39(3):303–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sorensen LJ, Stanton NA (2012) Y is best: how distributed situational awareness is mediated by organisational structure and correlated with task success. Safety Sci 56:72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stanton NA et al (2013) Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  31. Stout RJ, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Milanovich DM (1999) Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Hum Factors 41(1):61–71Google Scholar
  32. Swedish Club (2011) Collisions and groundings. Swedish Club. Available at: http://www.swedishclub.com/upload/Loss_Prev_Docs/collisions-and-groundings-2011-high-res.pdf
  33. Uluscu ÖS, Özbas B, Altiok T, Or I (2009) Risk analysis of the vessel traffic in the strait of Istanbul. Risk Anal 29(10):1454–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wild, Captain RJ (2011) The paradigm and the paradox of perfect pilotage. J Navigation 64(01):183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jahn Viggo Rønningen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kjell Ivar Øvergård
    • 2
  1. 1.Norwegian Shipowners’ AssociationOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Maritime OperationsUniversity College of Southeast NorwayBorreNorway

Personalised recommendations