TRAINING SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AND DECISION MAKING FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA: A THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 10 - 16, 25.12.2019

Taha Talip Türkistanlı Barış Kuleyin

Öz

Maritime
accidents are one of the main factors that disrupt maritime transportation.
Among these accidents, collision situations, due to their frequency and
consequences, possess a great threat to the safety of navigation. The majority
of these accidents are directly related to the operations within the ship and
human errors. In this study, we explore the importance and the training needs
for situational awareness and decision making for preventing collisions at sea
through a literature review. Studies suggest that seafarers on board who are
responsible for keeping navigational watch can both be the causer and preventer
for collisions. Recommendations of the studies in the field point to the need
for specialized training to improve situational awareness and decision making.
Training seafarers’ expectations and goals for collision situations are
proposed to achieve this improvement. Especially the usage of the training
scenarios including unexpected situations to increase familiarity and readiness
levels are referred frequently. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Situational Awareness, Decision Making, Collision at sea, maritime education and training

Kaynakça

• Antao, P., & Soares, C. G. (2006). Fault-tree models of accident scenarios of RoPax vessels. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 3(2), 107-116.
• Baker, C. C., & McCafferty, D. B. (2005). Accident database review of human element concerns: What do the results mean for classification?. In Proc. Int Conf.‘Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation, RINA Feb.
• Barnett, M., Gatfield, D., & Pekcan, C. (2006). Non-technical skills: the vital ingredient in world maritime technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on world maritime technology.
• Batalden, B. M., & Sydnes, A. K. (2014). Maritime safety and the ISM code: a study of investigated casualties and incidents. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 13(1), 3-25.
• Bohanec, M., Pirtošek, Z., Georgiev, D., Gregorič-Kramberger, M., Markič, O., Kordeš, U., Polič, M., Ule, A., & Tancig, S. (2009). INTERDISCIPLINARY DESCRIPTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS. INDECS, 7(2), 22-116.
• Brčko, T., Perković, M., & Cankar, Ž. (2014). Decision Making in the Process of Collision Avoidance at Sea–the Cognitive Aspect. Book of, 396
• Bryant, D. J., Webb, R. D., & McCann, C. (2003). Synthesizing two approaches to decision making in command and control.
• Celik, M., & Cebi, S. (2009). Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(1), 66-75.
• Chauvin, C. (2011). Human factors and maritime safety. The Journal of Navigation, 64(4), 625-632.
• Chauvin, C., & Lardjane, S. (2008). Decision making and strategies in an interaction situation: Collision avoidance at sea. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(4), 259-269.
• Chauvin, C., Clostermann, J. P., & Hoc, J. M. (2008). Situation awareness and the decision-making process in a dynamic situation: avoiding collisions at sea. Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making, 2(1), 1-23.
• Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J. P., & Langard, B. (2013). Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26-37.
• Cordon, J. R., Mestre, J. M., & Walliser, J. (2017). Human factors in seafaring: The role of situation awareness. Safety Science, 93, 256-265.
• Darbra, R. M., & Casal, J. (2004). Historical analysis of accidents in seaports. Safety science, 42(2), 85-98
• Demirel, E., & Bayer, D. (2015a). Improvement of Safety Education and Training For Seafaring Officers-Gemi Zabitlerinin Güvenlik Eğitim ve Öğretimlerinin Geliştirilmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi; Cilt 14, Sayı 55 (2015).
• Demirel, E., & Bayer, D. (2015b). Further studies on the COLREGs (collision regulations). TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 9.
• Eliopoulou, E., & Papanikolaou, A. (2007). Casualty analysis of large tankers. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 12(4), 240-250.
• EMSA (European Maritime and Safety Agency). (2018). Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents 2018. http://www.emsa.europa.eu/news-a-press-centre/external-news/item/3406-annual-overview-of-marine-casualties-and-incidents-2018.html
• Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human factors, 37(1), 32-64
• Endsley, M. R. (2017). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. In Situational Awareness (pp. 9-42). Routledge.
• Gore, J., Banks, A., Millward, L., & Kyriakidou, O. (2006). Naturalistic decision making and organizations: Reviewing pragmatic science. Organization Studies, 27(7), 925-942.
• Harvey, C., ZHENG, P., & STANTON, N. A. (2013). Naturalistic Decision Making on the Ship’s Bridge. In International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making.
• Hetherington, C., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in shipping: The human element. Journal of safety research, 37(4), 401-411.
• Hollnagel, E. (2002). Understanding accidents-from root causes to performance variability. In Human factors and power plants, 2002. proceedings of the 2002 ieee 7th conference on (pp. 1-1). IEEE.
• Imbsweiler, J., Stoll, T., Ruesch, M., Baumann, M., & Deml, B. (2018). Insight into cooperation processes for traffic scenarios: modelling with naturalistic decision making. Cognition, Technology & Work, 20(4), 621-635.
• IMO (International Maritime Organization). (2010). Adoption of the Final Act and Any Instruments, Resolutions and Recommendations Resulting from fhe Work of the Conference http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/TrainingCertification/Documents/34.pdf
• IMO (International Maritime Organization). (2019). Human Element. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/Default.aspx
• Klein, G. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. Naturalistic decision making, 285-292.
• Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human factors, The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50(3), 456-460.
• Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J. E., Calderwood, R. E., & Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in action: Models and methods. 138-147
• Kobus, D. A., Proctor, S., & Holste, S. (2001). Effects of experience and uncertainty during dynamic decision making. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 275–290.
• Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. Journal of behavioral decision making, 14(5), 331-352.
• Martins, M. R., & Maturana, M. C. (2010). Human error contribution in collision and grounding of oil tankers. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 674-698.
• Nikitakos, N., Sirris, I., Dalaklis, D., Papachristos, D., & Tsoukalas, V. D. (2017). Game-based learning for maritime education and training: the case of Trader of the World. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 16(2), 265-291.
• Øvergård, K. I., Sorensen, L. J., Nazir, S., & Martinsen, T. J. (2015). Critical incidents during dynamic positioning: operators’ situation awareness and decision-making in maritime operations. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 16(4), 366-387.
• Pekcan, C., Gatfield, D., & Barnett, M. (2005). Content and context: Understanding the complexities of human behaviour in ship operation. In Proceedings of the RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects International Conference—Human Factors in Ship Design, Safety and Operation, London, UK (pp. 23-24).
• Pourzanjani, M. (2001). Analysis of human error in co-ordinating ship's collision avoidance action. In International conference on collision and grounding of ships (pp. 85-91).
• Reason, J. (1997) Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 1–12.
• Rothblum, A. M. (2000). Human error and marine safety. In National Safety Council Congress and Expo, Orlando, FL (p. 7).
• Sandhåland, H., Oltedal, H., & Eid, J. (2015). Situation awareness in bridge operations–A study of collisions between attendant vessels and offshore facilities in the North Sea. Safety science, 79, 277-285.
• Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2001). Applying reason: The human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Human Factors and Aerospace Safety.
• Sitka, J. (2016). Decision Making of Maritime Junior Watch Officers: A Phenomenological Study. Doctoral Dissertation. Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
• Smith, A. G., & Jamieson, G. A. (2012). Level of automation effects on situation awareness and functional specificity in automation reliance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 2113-2117). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
• Toffoli, A., Lefevre, J. M., Bitner-Gregersen, E., & Monbaliu, J. (2005). Towards the identification of warning criteria: analysis of a ship accident database. Applied Ocean Research, 27(6), 281-291.
• Uğurlu, Ö., Köse, E., Yıldırım, U., & Yüksekyıldız, E. (2015). Marine accident analysis for collision and grounding in oil tanker using FTA method. Maritime Policy & Management, 42(2), 163-185.
• Yıldırım, U., Başar, E., & Uğurlu, Ö. (2017). Assessment of collisions and grounding accidents with human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) and statistical methods. Safety Science.
• Ziarati, R., & Ziarati, M. (2007). Review of Accidents with Special References to Vessels with Automated Systems. A Forward. AES07, The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMarEST).