Click for next page ( 218


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 217
6 Navigation and Piloting Technology SUMMARY A broad range of vessel- and shore-based technologies are emerging that have considerable potential for improving navigation safety. The effective applica- tion of high technology in operations and professional development programs offers a substantial means to significantly reduce risk in the near term. Interna- tional technical and performance standards and criteria, and corresponding na- tional standards and criteria are needed to guide the systematic introduction of new navigation technologies with capabilities and configurations that are well designed to enhance navigation safety. Technology is an important component of an overall approach for solving safety issues confronting marine transportation. To achieve the full potential of advanced technology for improving safety, sys- temic factors will need to be comprehensively addressed including ( 1 ) operator qualifications and training, (2) manning, (3) pilotage, (4) systems maintenance, (5) regional variations in port and waterway operating environments, (6) economics, and (7) institutional policies. Successful application and effective use of new and innovative technolo- gies require validation of the technologies, changes in operational procedures, and operator training. These efforts are necessary not only to ensure suitability and reliability of complex and integrated systems but also to demonstrate the practical value of these systems to mariners. Validation methods for navigation technologies that rely on software are not fully developed; there are few proven methodologies that offset the need for extensive field trials in the full range of operating conditions in which these technologies will be applied. Reliability as 217

OCR for page 217
218 MINDING THE HELM sessment techniques using statistical models are not mature for determining sys- tem faults in software-dependent systems. Further, although the capability to tailor visual presentations of navigation data can be a powerful tool, it also has the potential to increase risl<. For example, important navigation information could be screened out of the display if system designers or users lacl OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY 219 vironmental risl OCR for page 217
220 TABLE 6-1 Summary of Technology Improvement Options MINDING THE HELM Category/ Option Immediate Near-term Long-term Action Action Action PASSAGE PLANNING Develop international standards for electronic charts Develop international standards for electronic chart systems Develop international standards for automated chart corrections Require electronic charting systems to meet international standards Provide electronic chart data bases by or through national hydrographic offices Conduct more timely and complete hydrographic surveys Develop automated systems for chart corrections Provide accurate, timely reports on environmental conditions Expand real-time environmental information systems POSITION FIXING . . . . x x Develop minimum international standards for Electronic Chart and Display Information Systems (ECDIS) Indemnify from liability providers of electronic charts and manufacturers ot:^ electronic chart systems Review and if necessary revise laws x and regulations for bridge team operations Retain paper charts as a backup for ECDIS Improve accuracy of short range aids to navigation Improve positioning of buoys and fixed aids Expand distribution of racons and high-intensity lighted ranges Develop and install electronic ranges for poor visibility conditions Accelerate implementation of GPS and DGPS Accelerate development of electronic charts Accelerate schedule for harbor surveys Increase attention to human factors aspects of ECDIS Develop long-range plans for improving aids to navigation Review long-range plans for production of charts x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY TABLE 6-1 (Continued) 221 Category/ Option Immediate Near-term Long-term Action Action Action COMMUNICATIONS Aggressively enforce VHF radio regulations Improve Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) communications procedures to reduce potential for human error Implement more efficient data communication in VTS-user interactions Improve radio circuit discipline, including institution of standardized vocabulary Create additional VHF channels for commercial users Improve radio bandwidth efficiency . . COLLISION AVOIDANCE AND SURVEILLANCE Develop new Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA) functions and display . . capabilities Review, revise international ARPA standards to permit use of alternative technologies for speed measurement Standardize data outputs from integrated systems Adapt low-light video and sound discrimination systems for marine use Increase use of advanced technologies such as automated dependent surveillance (ADS) in VTS operations where feasible Conduct comprehensive analysis of requirements for ADS data communications Accelerate research of efficient data communications systems STEERING AND TRACK KEEPING Improve autopilot algorithms for shallow-water maneuvering Allow use of high-performance autopilots in pilotage waters Establish legal equivalency of ECDIS for plotting x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x continued on next page

OCR for page 217
222 TABLE 6-1 (Continued) MINDING THE HELM Category/ Option Immediate Near-term Long-term Action Action Action . BRIDGE TEAM MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING Accelerate use of integrated navigation systems Develop more complete standards for NEMA 0183 Develop standards for interfacing bridge equipment, engineering systems, and cargo/ballast systems Develop international standards for alarms, displays, and controls used in Integrated Ship Control Systems (ISCS) Develop rules for bridge configuration of ISCS Redefine automated dependent surveillance (ADS) to develop a performance-based standard Conduct research and development to improve ADS to simplify integration and reduce cost Encourage development of portable communications and navigation systems (PCNS) Develop piloting expert systems to support integrated bridge systems (IBS) and integrated ship control systems (ISCS) Develop expert systems for complex, busy waterways Conduct research and development to improve compatibility of expert systems with PCNS, IBS, and ISCS Dedicated radio frequencies for marine electronic data transmission Develop efficient and standard data protocols Develop international standard for ADS Conduct risk assessments of integrated bridge operations and equipment Develop regulations allowing non traditional bridge team Review and amend manning laws and regulations . x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY TABLE 6-1 (Continued) Category/ Option Immediate Near-term Long-term Action Action Action WEATHER AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Transmit PORTS data electronically for use with ECDIS Improve hull stress sensors and methods for mounting them Extend PORTS system to provide service to all major U.S. harbors DOCKING EVOLUTIONS Conduct research and development to hasten implementation of automated docking systems Develop more-reliable winch-control systems x x x x x IMPROVING NAVIGATION TECHNOLOGIES A wide range of technological options for enhancing maritime safety was examined during the study. The analysis presented here is organized by naviga- tion and piloting function. Within each functional classification, the current state of practice is outlined, and options are identified for immediate action, incre- mental improvement, and long-term development of technologies. For purposes of clarity, the options are italicized in the text. Immediate-action items are those needed to guide the application of emerg- ing technologies. They deal principally with technical and performance objec- tives and standards. Incremental improvements were defined as those already under way or achievable in one to three years. Long-term development alterna- tives were those only now being proposed, those having an uncertain time hori- zon, or those requiring extensive international coordination or change to imple- ment. Such strategies would be slow to produce effects but would have the benefit of ensuring that the diverse elements of the maritime community worked together and had time to accept any changes. The functional classifications include: passage/route planning; . . i. . poslhon ilxlng; communications; collision avoidance and surveillance; steering and track keeping; bridge team management and decision making; 223

OCR for page 217
224 MINDING THE HELM weather and environment monitoring; and docking evolutions. The analysis assumes some basic knowledge about each technology. This background is provided in Appendix I, which defines each technology men- tioned in this chapter and describes the traditional bridge setup, including place- ment of technologies. Several important off-ship technologies, including VTS systems and marine simulations used for waterway design and pilot training, are addressed in detail in Chapters 1, 3, and 5 and Appendix E. Passage/Route Planning Mariners plot their intended track line on a paper nautical chart showing waypoints for course and speed changes. The technologies used include tradi- tional nautical charts; navigation publications such as the Light List; and where available, electronic charting systems. Various technical and institutional factors constrain the full application of electronic charting technology. These include the lack of international perfor- mance standards (although these are under development), the unavailability of government-provided electronic charts or chart data, and the fact that the hydro- graphic data that are available for many pilotage waters are not as accurate as is the capability to determine precise positions using differential GPS (DGPS) and electronic charting systems. Further, the process of accumulating electronic data bases is slow and costly. Choosing the Charting Medium The choice of paper or electronic chart may be based on the relative advan- tages of the presentation format or the ease of use. (Paper and electronic charts also differ in legal status, an issue discussed later in this chapter.) Paper charts permit the user to see wide areas in sufficient detail to assist with voyage and route planning, and they can be folded and moved about the bridge to aid in visual orientation and identification of geographic features and aids to naviga- tion. They also remain available for use if an electronic charting system fails to operate correctly or becomes disabled. Whether all features of paper charts can be replaced by electronic charts has not been established (Gold, 1990a). Electronic charts, while capable of provid- ing the same or greater detail as paper charts over wide areas, must either con- dense this information into a smaller display or present only sections of charts (scaling factors as they affect accuracy are discussed later in this section). On the other hand, precise navigation data and radar images can be integrated into an electronic presentation to provide real-time steering guidance and hazard-avoid- ance features. Additionally, software-driven, computer-aided features can be de

OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY 225 signed to aid in data analysis and decision making. For example, color coding could be generated to mark depth contours. The master, pilot, or watch officer can determine what hydrographic data are displayed to aid in their transit. Criti- cal information needs vary from situation to situation. It is probably not neces- sary to display all information at all times. In fact, the most effective use of electronic chart display features appears to be selective display of information. However, an incomplete understanding of information needs for a transit or errors made in selecting what data are displayed could result in failure to display all key information needed at various locations along the vessel's route. What to display and when to display it are basic issues in determining whether Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS) can replace existing traditional equipment such as a separate radar console and paper charts. Empirical research is currently under way to assess which information in an ECDIS is most used, and which is most useful to the mariner (Smith, 1993~. These factors could complicate establishing use of electronic charts as legal- ly acceptable replacements for paper charts for planning and conducting naviga- tion. Performance criteria would need to address minimum display requirements for hydrographic data and ship parameters such as depth, breadth, and maneu- vering characteristics. In any case, it would be important for the mariner to be aware of which data will be displayed automatically and to what extent this data can be controlled by the user. Scaling Factors The scale of electronic chart displays needs to be constrained to ensure that chart data are not depicted at larger-than-intended scales, because the level of charted detail and the accuracy change with the scale of the chart. In general, the larger the scale and the smaller the area display, the more accurate the feature based on field survey standards and the precision with which data can be pre- sented. The standards for the horizontal accuracy of paper charts are based on the scale of the original field survey. Normally, the error budget for a chart is 0.8 mm at the scale of the survey. For a 1 :50,000-scale chart, features and soundings are thus required to be accurate to 40 m; for a 1:10,000-scale chart, 8 m. The scaling constraint undoubtedly will lead to demands for new, large-scale, highly accurate hydrographic surveys, especially of harbors and harbor approaches (Donald Florwick, NOAA, personal communication, October 30, 19923. It also may be useful to have software switches that change the level of detail to corre- spond to the scale presented on the electronic-chart visual display. Further, the hydrographic data need to be very accurate and reliable so that the mariner is not given a false sense of security, because the appearance of the high-technology display may be better than the data presented. Thus, even as electronic charting systems can offer unique additional sup- port for navigation functions other than voyage planning, they also have the

OCR for page 217
226 MINDING THE HELM potential to induce error through data screening features. Therefore, the federal agencies involved in development of standards for electronic charting systems are supporting the ECDIS concept. Only electronic charting systems that meet international performance standards including some minimal level of detail would carry the ECDIS designation and be considered to meet legal carriage requirements. Accuracy of Nautical Charts An electronic charting system, when combined with real-time position data conveys a convincing sense of reality. The visual presentation can be easily related to the maneuvering situation, facilitating the interpretation and applica- tion of displayed information. This capability appears to cause users familiar with system operation to believe the video display and to become increasingly reliant on it. Therefore, the information displayed needs to be as accurate as possible. Although electronic charting systems offer real-time utilization and increased precision in position fixing, and rapid update capability, the available hydro- graphic data upon which these features rely are incomplete (Box 6-11. Thus, the hydrographic data bases for electronic charts will not be any more reliable (in general) than those for paper charts in the near-term, because the same survey data are used. Because the accuracy of the available data is generally less than the precision by which the data can be displayed by an electronic charting sys- tem, mariners must consider the limitations of the data when using these sys- tems. Another accuracy factor is that NOAA has a substantial backlog of reported chart discrepancies that have yet to be resolved. The agency is capable of con- ducting field investigations of only about 20 percent of reported discrepancies each year. NOAA, which produces 1,000 different nautical charts, had almost 2,000 request for new surveys as of August 1993, some dating back to 1984, and 400 to 500 new wrecks and obstructions are reported annually for the East and Gulf coasts alone (NRC, 1994~. NOAA plans to make users aware of the limitations of nautical paper charts by adding source diagrams, which will show the date, source, and scale of the survey data (Prahl, 1992~. Knowledge of chart shortcomings will help users make informed decisions. But even greater demands will be placed on hydrogra- phers by the nature of electronic displays. The development of digital hydro- graphic data bases is the most labor-intensive and costly step in making electron- ic charts available to the mariner. The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) ECDIS Provisional Performance Standards require that data bases be supplied by a national hydrographic office. However, electronic chart data bases must be developed on an international scale to provide complete coverage and

OCR for page 217
<~ ~ ~ = ~227 I i! 1llllllllllIllil~l~llllIIlilIlIlllTITITTTTTTTTT~l~lllT 111 lIll~llllll~ll!lTll TT . i66.:cI1l~llA~.iph, 4:~vel Instill s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s:s~s~s~sss:.s.ss~ss.s.ss~ss.s.s.s ss~ss.s.ss~ss.s ..s~sS.ssssss~ss.sss.ss~ss.s.sss~ss~s~s~s~ssssss.sssssssssS~s~sss~sssssssssssssss~s~s~sssssssssssssssss~s~s~sssss~s, ,.ssssssss~sssssssss ~,ssS~sssssssssss~sssss~s~sssss~s~ssss I -~#l~=l~I~ Bulls - ~ it!!! 1 updated rogul~ly, and 1berc needs to be consistency iD units of measure) the process involves digidzing paper abbots and, idcaUy, conducing new bydro- graphic surveys using state-oPtbe-=t technology to provide 100 percent bottom coverage in SigDi5C8Dt gems. The data flats Id procedures to produce the data bases are in place,2 but digitizing paper charts of U.S. maters alone is ex 1Present NOAA cabs ma use Bee Elbows, or millers Conversion lo 1be metric system, now under may, is expected lo lie lO lo 13 yearn Thus, it is possible for a vessels echo sounders Ode gables, Ed nautical cabs lo be in Wee di~renl Unix. Electronic cuing systems need lo be camp of convening between ~1 these menses Ed displaying constant units. 2Tbere He Lao methods of digitizing dale. To produce raffler digLa1 dam, Me pier cab is passed Tough ~ scanner, whim captures ~ digital image. The raffler image can be displayed on a consular monitor but ilS Velures cannot be deleted or manipuIaled individually. An overlay for user input and cb=1 updates can be added. Vector dale, on 1bc oar hand, ~ produced by storing position and Bud on iron far each arc on 1hc char. Vector iron is more discuss Fan raster data to gather but oars 1hc bencA1 of scleclivc manipulation and display. Vector data is required far ECDIS. Elec~oMc cog ~spl~ can use either type of dam.

OCR for page 217
260 MINDING THE [IELM though the PORTS system has been very well received by its marine users, NOAA reports that agency resources are not available for long-term operation, much less for expansion of the capability to other ports. The agency has suggest- ed that revenues collected from the marine transportation industry and main- tained in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (in excess of funds needed for channel maintenance) might be an appropriate source of funding for continua- tion and expansion of the PORTS program. Docking Evolutions Docking large vessels is a time-consuming and potentially hazardous opera- tion. The velocity and position of the ship as it approaches the dock must be controlled carefully to prevent damage to the dock or the ship. This maneuvering requires skill and experience; control of the ship's engine, rudder, and bow thrust- er (if available) must be coordinated accurately with the forces provided by one or more tug boats to achieve proper velocities in an environment of wind and currents. Little research and development has been conducted in recent years related to docking technology, although two types of technologies have been introduced: dual-axis docking Doppler systems and constant tension winches. Constant ten- sion winches are very useful during docking evolutions. They are designed to maintain constant tension on the wire ropes used to winch or hold a ship along- side a pier. The tension can be set to avoid the parting of these ropes that would endanger linehandlers on the ship and the pier and that would complicate dock- ing. This feature also allows the ship to be warped along the pier to attain the desired position. Tests are being conducted with automated docking systems. Real-time pre- cision navigation systems also can be employed in such systems. For example, installation of DGPS antennas on both the bow and stern could be used to pre- cisely monitor both the forward and lateral movement of the vessel during dock- ing maneuvers. Options for Incremental Improvements Automated docking systems are a promising new technology. Ongoing re- search and development could be accelerated to allow early implementation of automated docking systems, which could be helpful in certain U.S. ports. Ade- quate control and positioning technology is available, but additional research and development is needed to produce autonomous systems. Such systems are under development in a number of countries as part of "intelligent ship" pro- grams. The most notable advances have been made by the Japanese, who in 1990 conducted an evaluation of their automatic berthing and unberthing system

OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY 261 aboard the experimental ship Shoji Maru.14 Experiments with the Japanese sys- tem showed that smooth and accurate transitions to and from berth were possi- ble, that the orders generated by the system mimicked those expected from an experienced captain and docking master, and that the approaching speed of the ship was reasonable and safe. Although autonomous systems have yet to be deployed, a number of experimental docking-assist systems are undergoing eval- uation aboard operating vessels. Winches require heavy maintenance because of the harsh environment of the weather decks on which they are located. It might be useful to develop more- reliable and less-maintenance-intensive winch-control systems to ensure their availability for use during docking evolutions. Options for Long-Term Development No specific options for long-term development were identified. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE How Marine Navigation Technology is Adopted Historically, advances in marine navigation technology have been driven largely by military needs and considerations (such as radar in World War II), and to some degree, by marine-related missions of federal agencies (e.g., the aids to navigation maintained by the Coast Guard). Now, however, certain advanced navigation equipment can be applied as an integral part of bridge design to gain an economic benefit. Advances in electronics and space technology permit auto- mation and integration of navigation tasks such as fixing and displaying the ship's position. Automation facilitates reduction in manning, a change in prac- tice pursued by the shipping industry to reduce operating costs; automation also can be applied to expedite the work of the remaining crew, a useful feature on complicated modern ships. The trend is for ships to become more automated overall (NRC, 1990a).l5 Change generally has evolved slowly in the marine industry, in part because most technology has not been developed or regulated centrally. However, eco- nomic competition has increased the pace of technological change. History shows 14The Japanese Intelligent Ship Project is a joint research program organized and managed by seven shipbuilding companies under the Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan. The ship is owned by Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine. 15Technology exists for remote and centralized monitoring and control of the engine room; water and fuel flows; and such functions as navigation, loading and unloading, distribution of ballast for stability, maintenance, inventory of parts and stores, and even administration (Ohmes and Robinson, 1987).

OCR for page 217
262 MINDING THE HELM that shipping companies adopt new technologies if their actual use substantially reduces operational risk and uncertainty (and thereby economic risk). The speed of adoption depends on availability and reliability of the technology, its proven value through demonstrated effective application, and its cost. Another factor affecting application is that use of advanced technologies involves a complex of changes related to design, performance, and reliability, some of which may in- creaserisks(Aranow, 1984;NRC, 1991b;Reason, 19923.0therimportantfac- tors affecting technology acceptance and application are impediments to innova- tion and application of technology embodied in laws, regulations, and legal precedents. Two examples of adopted technologies, albeit motivated by official man- dates, are bridge-to-bridge communications and radar. Marine pilots now con- sider VHF radio and radar fundamental to piloting practice and have been instru- mental in establishing their near-universal application. This is a legal as well as a practical choice. If a pilot fails to use available proven equipment and an acci- dent occurs, then a defense of prudent seamanship becomes vincible in disciplin- ary proceedings. This concern may be applicable to newer technologies if their use becomes "fundamental" to basic navigation practices. Marine Transportation Companies and Technological Change The key force driving the installation and use of navigation technology by marine transportation companies is economics, although the economic contribu- tion of safety improvements and public interests in safety may in some cases be strongly considered in decision making. If the economic benefits of a technology are not obvious-and they may not be then vessel owners are not inclined to buy it without an official mandate that provides incentives or requirements to do so. The economic influence in a highly competitive industry is so powerful that it could work against a safety scheme based on universal voluntary application of specific technologies. Increases in operating costs (including any associated with mandated technology) that affect financial well-being could lead to a shake- out in ship routing, fleet composition, or both. This result would determine whether there would be a net benefit in economics or safety. Nevertheless, a small but growing number of operating companies have made considerable in- vestments in high-technology integrated navigation systems, for example, to fa- cilitate uninterrupted passenger service or to reduce operational (and economic) risk in tanker or freight operations (Herberger et al., 1991~. Mariners and Technological Change Dependent as it is on evolving economic, safety, and legal pressures; tech- nology acceptance can be an arduous, piecemeal process. Mariners are often ambivalent about change, and they tend to cling to proven traditional methods

OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY 263 until convinced that a new technology works. As an illustration, testimony solic- ited from marine pilots indicates that their work remains more an art than a science. Some feel that "more sophisticated technologies do not contribute much, and may only serve to increase the load on the pilot" (Ramaswamy and Grabows- ki, 19921. Yet many pilots have become ardent advocates of technologies such as radar, and especially over the last several years the use of marine simulation for continuing professional development. Likewise, if emerging high-technology navigation systems can be demonstrated to be significantly helpful in their work, marine pilots are likely to become ardent supporters of universal use of such technologies. That is, they will unless operating companies attempt to substitute advanced technology for pilotage services, thereby reducing pilotage costs and threatening pilot livelihood. Although some marine pilots have promoted the use of advanced navigation technology, for example, the use of bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone (USCG, 1972), pilots in the past infrequently were brought in at the "proof of concept" stage of technology development, with the notable exceptions of computer-based marine simulation for channel design, and more recently, in developing some VTS systems (Maio et al., 1991; NRC, 1992aJ. Perhaps pilots were not called on more for the development of navigation technologies, because visual piloting is still relied on to a significant extent in confined waters. But public expectations for the safety of vessel operations are changing, and there are unmet needs for all-weather, precision positioning capabilities. However, marine pilot expert knowledge of shiphandling and confined water operations is a resource that could be better used in the research and development of advanced systems, to help ensure that these systems will achieve their full potential in reducing risk in pilotage waters. Further, marine pilots are in a unique position to assist in vali- dating newly introduced technologies and to provide leadership in their applica- tion (such as for pilot-operated VTS or VTS-like systems). What is occurring in marine transportation, then, is a convergence of old and new navigation practices. The traditional and trusted piloting methods, which rely heavily on visual observation (of varying acuity), use of radio and radar, and the application of expert local knowledge, are being weighed against high-tech- nology solutions that offer real-time information and support for precision navi- gation and decision making but that have yet to inspire confidence and trust. This quandary contrasts with the situation in aviation, where new systems are tested by central authorities, and U.S. industry routinely complies with the mandated schedule for installing and retrofitting the devices on all aircraft (Gold, 1990a). ICAO16 has broad powers to promulgate standards and practices for new 16The ICAO is more active and more adequately funded than the IMO, which is funded in accor- dance with the respective tonnages of flag states. The IMO funding scheme is a problem because over 20 percent of the world's tonnage is registered in Liberia and Panama; neither nation has contributed to IMO activities in recent years due to internal financial difficulties in each country (CHA, 1990).

OCR for page 217
264 MINDING THE HELM systems. The development and implementation process is said by some to unfold relatively quickly, although this depends on the point of comparison. What is more, considering the total capital and operating costs of aircraft, measures which enhance safety and performance were routinely considered as cost-effective (Gold, 1990a). This receptiveness appears to have changed somewhat as a result of less favorable economic conditions in the aviation industry. Nevertheless, the well-established strong organizational structure and institutional processes that facilitate the introduction of technology remain in place. The acceptance by U.S. airlines of the Microwave Landing System (NILS) provides a cogent example of more recent conditions. MLS was developed and shepherded through ICAO by the United States as the landing system for the next century. However, with the advent of satellite navigation, the airlines have convinced the Federal Aviation Administration to establish a vigorous develop- ment program to determine the feasibility of DGPS application to precision ap- proaches, including Category III approaches (zero ceiling limitation). This user initiative is based on economic benefits, where airlines believe that the flexibili- ty of satellite navigation, with respect to coverage at all airports worldwide, user preferred routes, single system for all phases of navigation, and application to automatic dependent surveillance, will lead to substantial costs savings in their operations (RTCA, 1992~. Pitfalls of the Application Process: Some Examples The introduction of new navigation technologies has been met more by operator reluctance to give up traditional systems than by forward-looking en- thusiasm. The absence of wholehearted support has created a number of prob- lems concerning advanced technologies, including lack of standardized equip- ment, a shortage of validation methodologies, regulatory standards that constrain either optimal usage of technology or its further development (or both), require- ments for specialized training, and considerable reliance on traditional practices even when using advanced systems. Following are specific examples. Multiple Equipment Configurations and Regulatory Restrictions Two problems multiple configurations and regulatory restrictions are il- lustrated by ARPA. Marine pilots responding to a committee inquiry complained about the lack of standardized ARPA consoles, a frequent cause of pilot difficul- ty in using this equipment effectively (Ramaswamy and Grabowski, 19921. Such difficulty poses a safety risk if bridge team support to the pilot in making effec- tive use of ARPA is inadequate, perhaps even canceling out the collision-avoid- ance safety benefit ARPA is supposed to provide (Ramaswamy and Grabowski, 1992; Zabrocky, 1992~. Further, ARPA's capabilities are specified-and limit ed by regulations (33 CFR 164.383. ARPA's plane of reference must be the

OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY 265 water plane; that is, speed data should be obtained through the water signal. But water-speed instruments-once the only technologies available for determining speed are neither very accurate nor very reliable. Today, navigation equipment using DGPS signals can measure speed very accurately over ground. This data cannot be used with ARPA, however, because regulations do not provide for measurements by means other than water speed instruments. The result is that mariners, frequently unable to obtain an adequate water signal, often enter speed information manually, sometimes forgetting to change it later. Resulting ARPA solutions are degraded in relation to the error introduced, increasing operational risk. Regulations addressing technology application can either foster or impede research and development, depending on how they are written. For example, a 12-channel GPS receiver is required by the Coast Guard for the ADS/VTS sys- tem for tank vessels over 20,000 deadweight tons in Prince William Sound (33 CFR 161.376~. As written, the regulation does not provide adaptive flexibility or include provisions or incentives to motivate further improvements in positioning accuracy or system integrity. But if the wording were changed to specify a min- imum integrity comparable with that provided by the 12-channel GPS receiver, the regulation still would result In the near-term adoption of this equipment while also providing latitude for subsequent technological innovation. Pe jormance Objectives and Assessments Another concern is that construction and performance standards are not available to guide the introduction of high-technology systems or to minimize the unconstrained proliferation of different configurations and features. Advanced technologies are becoming more reliant on software and therefore can be modi- fied very rapidly much more rapidly than can traditional hardware-based tech- nologies-for the purposes of correcting deficiencies and improving capabilities (Buxton and Hornsby, 19921. However, the range of possible permutations and the speed at which they can be made and introduced has the potential to exacer- bate the difficulty that mariners, especially pilots, have in building and maintain- ing familiarity with high-technology navigation systems. These difficulties are compounded, because only a few standardized methods have been developed for validating software short of extensive field trials. Validation is a current research topic in the software engineering community and vessel classification societies (Buxton and Hornsby, 1992; MacIennan and Shaw, 1992; Singpurwalla and Wil- son, 19931. Such tests are the principal method for determining logic or pro- gramming flaws in software and evaluating actual system performance relative to designed capabilities. For example, before new or updated personal computer software is introduced for sale, in addition to bench tests, special field trials, referred to as "beta" tests, are conducted by individuals selected to challenge

OCR for page 217
266 MINDING THE HELM software capabilities and performance. Many, but not necessarily all, "bugs" in the software are identified for subsequent correction. Generally, software can be tested without creating any physical danger. However, this is not the case for field testing either software or hardware in marine systems. It is difficult if not impossible to stress a technology sufficiently to see if it works, in either a port-and-waterways operating environment or river system, without exposing the vessel serving as the testbed to some physical dangers. These dangers become more pronounced as the pilotage waters or traf- fic situation become more challenging. For most potential applications, it does not appear economically feasible to employ large vessels in commercial service as dedicated testbeds, although some limited trials may be feasible. Further, operational risk in conducting such tests might be significant. Although small, maneuverable vessels could be employed as testbed platforms for beta-like tests, even this is costly, not entirely without risks, and it appears to the committee, not frequently done. Whether or how well the results of such testing would transfer to larger platforms of far different design, outfitting, and manning has not been ascertained. Simulation technology has been used in a few cases to evaluate a new tech- nology (Grabowski and Wallace, 1993; Schuffel et al., 1989) or to test technolo- gy utilization (Akerstrom-Hoffman et al., 1993; Alexander and Klingler, 1992; Gonin et al., 1993; Smith, 19931. Simulation offers a controlled environment absent of physical dangers to the participants, and the ability to test the technol- ogy under operating conditions too dangerous for field tests. Although far less costly than field tests for the same level of empirical observation, the cost and time-intensive nature of simulation, and the need to install and effectively inte- grate the technology into the simulation, have impeded widespread adoption of this technology for this purpose. Another testing approach is to combine use of marine simulation and afloat testbeds. This is the approach employed in the U.S. ECDIS Testbed Project, a multifaceted government-industry demonstration, test, and evaluation project. The project is supporting the development of international performance stan- dards for ECDIS by the IMO. The U.S. researchers are testing the capability and limitations of prototype ECDIS systems; evaluating the adequacy of proposed international ECDIS design and performance standards; and examining the in- corporation of the human-machine interface into ECDIS design, operation, and performance (Alexander and Black, 1993; Alexander and Klingler, 1992; Gonin, 1993; Marine Log, 19921. Controlled experiments and tests that could not be readily performed at sea were conducted using marine simulation (Akerstrom- Hoffman et al., 1993; Alexander and Klingler, 1992; Gonin et al., 1993; Smith, 1993~. Afloat tests have employed a ferry boat, a 180-foot Coast Guard buoy tender as the testbed, and a maritime academy training vessel. Although these vessels did not exactly represent large commercial ships in terms of bridge con- figurations, maneuvering characteristics, and manning levels, the tests that were

OCR for page 217
NAVIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY 267 conducted yielded valuable insight for the ECDIS testbed project (Gonin, 1993; Gonin and Crowell, 19923. Ultimately, it appears that a technology must be field-tested aboard the pre- cise class or type of vessel for which application is intended to determine effec- tiveness for that type of platform in the range of operating conditions that will be experienced. Field trials also appear to be needed for each individual installation, because of differences among vessels, even those of the same type or class (see Chapter 41. In select cases, it may be possible to obtain a broad base of experi- ence with a new technology by applying it on regular routes, with regular bridge- team personnel, over a wide range of operating conditions and for an extended period. This approach was used to evaluate and build trust and confidence in integrated bridge systems aboard large passenger ferries in the Baltic (Herberger et al., 1991.) However, little if any formal performance monitoring of applied technologies seems to be the norm. (Previous NRC assessments have consistent- ly identified a need for more systematic assessment of safety needs and perfor- mance of safety measures and safety data to support such assessments tNRC, 1990a, 1991a].) There appears to the committee to be a general reliance on informal evaluation by shipboard personnel; their operational insight is essential, but few mariners are prepared to evaluate technical performance scientifically, especially of software, that requires a programmer's critique. As a general practice, a new technical system is usually installed aboard a vessel, and experience is gained with it through actual operations. A danger in this approach is that mariners might become prematurely confident in the new technology through its continued use at sea rather than through experience with it in pilotage waters. Yet, it would be imprudent to rely solely on a new technol- ogy for navigation in pilotage waters without establishing a solid basis for trust- ing it. Therefore, despite the apparent potential of emerging technology to im- prove navigation, a conservative approach to operational acceptance is justified, especially with regard to the software-based technology. At the same time, the desirability of reducing operational, economic, and environmental risk argue for prudent acceleration of technology introduction, validation, and acceptance. Performance Objectives vs. Equipment Mandates Considering the pitfalls and uncertainties that may be encountered in intro- ducing new technology, it may be advisable to develop baseline standards that emphasize performance objectives rather than mandating specific equipment. Performance-based standards leave room for flexibility in exceeding the require- ments or meeting them in new ways, thereby allowing users to respond to dy- namic changes in needs and to employ technological advances as they become available. This approach has taken hold in civil aviation, where the trend is toward specifying required navigation performance rather than the carriage of designated equipment (RTCA, 1992~. The user thus may choose the navigation

OCR for page 217
268 MINDING THE HELM configuration that satisfies both legal requirements and individual preferences. Of course, this advantage could be lost if, to achieve a specified level of perfor- mance, a navigator had no option but to use one particular type of equipment. Ensuring Pilot and Watch Officer Proficiency Among the new problems posed by advanced technologies are the subtle difficulties involved in their practical use (Perrow, 1984~. The introduction of radar into the fleets provides a useful example. A number of marine casualties suggested that the watch officer or pilot sometimes became so engaged in oper- ating the radar that awareness of the larger navigational picture was lost, result- ing in decisions that contributed to or caused collisions. Marine simulation re- search determined that watch officers sometimes became more absorbed with a problem when using radar than with visual sighting or when computer-aided decision aids were available (Aranow, 19841. This phenomenon became known as "radar-assisted collisions" (Hebden, 1990; NTSB, 1972; Wenk, 19861. The term is also used to refer to collisions associated with pushing the limits of safe operations by relying on radar during periods of reduced visibility. Radar en- ables maneuvers or speeds that would not normally be attempted if radar were not available, but these actions may not be prudent. Similar problems are possible with new navigation technologies such as integrated radar and electronic charting systems if they are not used carefully. What is more, if masters, other members of bridge teams, and marine pilots have to become familiar with new systems through on-thejob experience, they may find it difficult, if not impossible, to learn effectively without at the same time compromising the integrity of piloting or watchkeeping. To minimize such a possibility, training requirements for new technologies would need to be deter- mined and, insofar as is practical, training provided prior to using the technolo- gy. Alternatively, special provisions could be made to ensure that proficiency in the use of the new technology was established without compromising safety and performance. This level of training is employed routinely in commercial avia- tion. Technology-Induced Changes to Pilotage The time-honored methods of piloting, recruitment, and on-thejob profes- sional development may be challenged by inexorable technological changes. With the emergence of sophisticated technologies and new bridge configura- tions, marine pilots find themselves and their profession under increasing pres- sure to update their practices to make use of these new capabilities. In the past, marine pilots adapted to such changes as new technology as it entered the commercial fleet and appeared in their service area. This was an adequate approach, because the slow pace of change provided sufficient time for

OCR for page 217
NA VIGATING AND PILOTING TECHNOLOGY 269 pilots to become familiar with new systems. Likewise, traditional pilotage sys- tems and pilot development programs were adequate to meet professional-devel- opment needs. However, the existing systems and programs are not structured to develop the needed technical skills in a rapidly changing operating environment (see Chapters 1 through 31. Associated training issues are discussed in Chapter 7 and Appendix F. Chances are that marine pilots will find it necessary to adapt to changing technologies to satisfy the professional expectations of operating companies, masters, and public authorities concerned with operational and environmental safety. How quickly this need will develop is not certain; given the swiftness of technological advances and the lack of universal, continuing professional devel- opment programs, it could be soon.

OCR for page 217