journal article·2020-12-07Open access

Regulatory Requirements on the Competence of Remote Operator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship: Situation Awareness, Ship Sense and Goal-Based Gap Analysis

Masanori Yoshida, Etsuro Shimizu, Masashi Sugomori, Ayako Umeda

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 23

Abstract

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) has been developed recently, and demonstration projects have been carried out internationally. Considering the full autonomous level is unlikely to be addressed shortly, remote control centre and Remote Operator (RO) will play a vital role in the MASS system. Although competence of watchkeeping at the ship’s bridge is inevitable for RO to avoid ship accidents caused by human errors, international requirements have not been introduced yet. This paper presents a way to develop the regulatory framework on the competence of RO based on the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) by exploring the concept of Situation Awareness (SA). Goal-Based Gap Analysis (GBGA) is constructed based on the human-behaviour model and the required information for SA. A case study through the mini focus group discussion with interviews by a total of three (3) veteran instructors of training ships is conducted utilising the information including the results of previous demonstration projects on the remote control. The results show the relationship between required information and ship sense, shortage of these factors when RO is operating, additional competence and possible regulatory requirements for RO. The findings support the usefulness of GBGA and pave the way to develop a regulatory framework for RO further.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Maritime Navigation and Safety · Risk and Safety Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Marine Electronics and Mechanical Engineering, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6, Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533, Japan

The Maritime Human Resource Institute, Japan, 4-5, Koji-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0083, Japan

References (52)

Show source-provided references
1. (2020, August 20). Rolls-Royce Rolls-Royce and Finferries Demonstrate World’s First Fully Autonomous Ferry. Available online: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases.aspx.
2. (2020, August 20). Maritime Executive Construction of Yara Birkeland Paused. Available online: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/construction-of-yara-birkeland-paused.
3. NYK (2020, July 15). NYK to Participate in Crewless Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship Trial Project. Available online: https://www.nyk.com/english/news/2020/20200615_01.html.
4. Lloyd’s Register (2017). LR Code for Unmanned Marine Systems, Lloyd’s Register.
5. Maritime UK (2019). Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) UK Industry Conduct Principles and Code of Practice, Maritime UK.
6. IMO (2020, July 24). Autonomous Shipping. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Autonomous-shipping.aspx.
7. Porathe, T., Hoem, Å.S., Rødseth, Ø.J., Fjørtoft, K.E., and Johnsen, S.O. (2018). At Least as Safe as Manned Shipping? Autonomous Shipping, Safety and “Human Error”, Taylor & Francis.10.1201/9781351174664-52 ↗
8. Collision avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships: Operators’ tasks and human failure events10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.038 ↗
9. Marine Autonomous Surface Ship—A Great Challenge to Maritime Education and Training10.11648/j.ajwse.20200601.12 ↗
10. Ziarati, R., and Ziarati, M. (2007). Review of Accidents with Special References to Vessels with Automated Systems—A Way Forward, The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMarEST).
11. Determining the Legal Status of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles: Formalism vs. functionalism
12. A Study of the Application Barriers to the Use of Autonomous Ships Posed by the Good Seamanship Requirement of COLREGs10.1017/S0373463319000924 ↗
13. The Legal Status and Operation of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles10.1080/00908320.2018.1502500 ↗
14. From Here to Autonomy: Lessons Learned From Human–Automation Research10.1177/0018720816681350 ↗
15. The IDA cognitive model for the analysis of nuclear power plant operator response under accident conditions. Part I: Problem solving and decision making model10.1016/S0951-8320(96)00104-4 ↗
16. Human-system concurrent task analysis for maritime autonomous surface ship operation and safety10.1016/j.ress.2019.106697 ↗
17. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems10.1518/001872095779049543 ↗
18. Situation Awareness and the Decision-Making Process in a Dynamic Situation: Avoiding Collisions at Sea10.1518/155534308X284345 ↗
19. Impact of training programs on decision-making and situation awareness of trainee watch officers10.1016/j.ssci.2009.03.008 ↗
20. Situation awareness information requirements for maritime navigation: A goal directed task analysis10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.016 ↗
21. Porathe, T., Prison, J., and Yemao, M. (2014, January 26–27). Situation awareness in remote control centres for unmanned ships. Proceedings of the Human Factors in Ship Design & Operation, London, UK.10.3940/rina.hf.2014.12 ↗
22. ICS (2016). Bridge Procedure Guide, ICS. [5th ed.].
23. Ship sense—Striving for harmony in ship manoeuvring10.1007/s13437-013-0038-5 ↗
24. Autonomous merchant vessels: Examination of factors that impact the effective implementation of unmanned ships10.1080/18366503.2016.1229244 ↗
25. Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs10.1093/swr/svt032 ↗
26. A Survey of Situation Awareness Requirements in Air-to-Air Combat Fighters10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_5 ↗
27. An Informative System Based on the Skill Gap Analysis to Planning Training Courses10.4236/am.2012.311224 ↗
28. Competency mapping: A gap analysis
29. A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality10.1177/002224298905300207 ↗
30. Situation awareness as a determinant for unsafe actions and subjective risk assessment on offshore attendant vessels10.1016/j.ssci.2016.12.012 ↗
31. The Human Element and Autonomous Ships
32. DNVGL (2018). Autonomous and Remotely Operated Ships, DNVGL.
33. Anton, A. (1996, January 15–18). Goal-Based requirements analysis. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, USA.
34. A Delphi-AHP study on STCW leadership competence in the age of autonomous maritime operations10.1007/s13437-020-00203-1 ↗
35. Mindykowski, J. (2018, January 18–19). Impact of staff competences on power quality—Related ship accidents. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE), Iasi, Romania.10.1109/ICEPE.2018.8559646 ↗
36. Sharma, A., Kim, T., Nazir, S., and Chae, C.-J. (2019, January 24–25). Catching up with time? Examining the STCW competence framework for autonomous shipping. Proceedings of the Ergoship Conference, Haugesund, Norway.
37. Training Gaps for Pediatric Residents Planning a Career in Primary Care: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study10.4300/JGME-D-10-00151.1 ↗
38. Contradictions in the practices of training for and assessment of competency10.1108/00400910810874026 ↗
39. Cross, S.J. (2007, January 24–25). Competence Based Learning and Evaluation: Developments and Non-Developments in MET. Proceedings of the IFSMA 33rd Annual General Assembly, Antwerp, Belgium.
40. Reviewing seafarer assessment methods to determine the need for authentic assessment10.1080/18366503.2014.888133 ↗
41. Merging Conventionally Navigating Ships and MASS—Merging VTS, FOC and SCC?
42. Japan Transport Safety Board (2015). Marine Accident Investigation Report, Japan Transport Safety Board. MA2015-3 2015.
43. Shiotani, S., Terai, K., and Ryu, X. (2016). Study on development of maneuvering support system by ship handling order from land. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. Ser. B3 Ocean Eng., 72.10.2208/jscejoe.72.I_1117 ↗
44. “Focus Groups Can Be Fun”: The Use of Activity-Oriented Questions in Focus Group Discussions10.1177/1049732307308129 ↗
45. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation10.1111/2041-210X.12860 ↗
46. Kamberelis, G., and Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus Groups: Strategic Articulations of Pedagogy, Politics and Inquiry. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Sage Publications.
47. Maritime human factors and IMO policy10.1080/03088839.2013.782974 ↗
48. Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings10.1177/1555343415572631 ↗
49. Felski, A., and Zwolak, K. (2020). The Ocean-Going Autonomous Ship—Challenges and Threats. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 8.10.3390/jmse8010041 ↗
50. Chae, C.-J., Kim, M., and Kim, H.-J. (2020). A Study on Identification of Development Status of MASS Technologies and Directions of Improvement. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10134564 ↗
51. Effects of a classroom-based bridge resource management training on knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and performance of junior naval officers
52. Situation awareness in bridge operations—A study of collisions between attendant vessels and offshore facilities in the North Sea10.1016/j.ssci.2015.06.021 ↗