Nautical Collision Avoidance

Objective Experimentally investigate maneuver decision preferences in navigating ships to avoid a collision. How is safety (collision avoidance) balanced against efficiency (deviation from path and delay) and rules of the road under conditions of both trajectory certainty and uncertainty. Background Human decision error is a prominent factor in nautical collisions, but the multiple factors of geometry of collisions and role of uncertainty have been little studied in empirical human factors literature. Approach Eighty-seven Mechanical Turk participants performed in a lower fidelity ship control simulation, depicting ownship and a cargo ship hazard on collision or near-collision trajectories of various conflict geometries, while controlling heading and speed with the sluggish relative dynamics. Experiment 1 involved the hazard on a straight trajectory. In Experiment 2, the hazard could turn on unpredictable trials. Participants were rewarded for efficiency and penalized for collisions or close passes. Results Participants made few collisions, but did so more often when on a collision path. They sometimes violated the instructed rules of the road by maneuvering in front of the hazard ship’s path. They preferred speed control to heading control. Performance degraded in conditions of uncertainty. Conclusion Data reveal an understanding of maneuver decisions and conditions that affect the balance between safety and efficiency. Application The simulation and data highlight the degrading role of uncertainty and provide a foundation upon which more complex questions can be asked, asked of more trained navigators, and decision support tools examined.

[1]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Effect of Visualization Training on Uncertain Spatial Trajectory Predictions , 2018, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Christine Chauvin,et al.  Decision making and strategies in an interaction situation: Collision avoidance at sea , 2008 .

[3]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Toward Automated Air Traffic Control—Investigating a Fundamental Paradigm Shift in Human/Systems Interaction , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Calibrating Uncertainty: Commonalities in the Estimation of Numeric Variability Versus Spatial Prediction , 2018, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

[5]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Overconfidence in Projecting Uncertain Spatial Trajectories , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Alex Kirlik,et al.  Supervisory control in a dynamic and uncertain environment: a process model of skilled human-environment interaction , 1993, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[7]  Joost C. F. de Winter,et al.  Training and assessment with a faster than real-time simulation of a drinking water treatment plant , 2012, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory.

[8]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking: Design Applications of Visual Spatial Thinking: The Importance of Frame of Reference , 2005 .

[9]  Cr Sridhar The signal and the noise , 2016 .

[10]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Situation Awareness and the Decision-Making Process in a Dynamic Situation: Avoiding Collisions at Sea , 2008 .

[11]  John S. Habberley,et al.  Simulated Collision Avoidance Manoeuvres: a Parametric Study , 1989 .

[12]  Joost Ellerbroek,et al.  The Effect of Traffic Complexity on the Development of Near Misses on the North Sea , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[13]  John D. Lee,et al.  Augmenting the operator function model with cognitive operations: assessing the cognitive demands of technological innovation in ship navigation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[14]  H. Ligteringen,et al.  Study on collision avoidance in busy waterways by using AIS data , 2010 .

[15]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Attention Does Not Improve Impaired Understanding Of Variability In Spatial Prediction , 2018, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

[16]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season , 2007 .

[17]  Christine Chauvin,et al.  Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[18]  Xingda Qu,et al.  Benefits of Imperfect Conflict Resolution Advisory Aids for Future Air Traffic Control , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[19]  W. A. Wagenaar,et al.  Misperception of exponential growth , 1975 .

[20]  吉澤 眞範 International regulations for preventing collisions at sea , 1933 .

[21]  Shayne Loft,et al.  A theory and model of conflict detection in air traffic control: incorporating environmental constraints. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[22]  Christine Chauvin,et al.  Collision Risk Management in Passenger Transportation: A Study of the Conditions for Success in a Safe Shipping Company , 2015 .

[23]  Jürgen S. Sauer,et al.  Cognitive Demands of Collision Avoidance in Simulated Ship Control , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[24]  Kathryn Mearns,et al.  Safety in shipping: the human element. , 2006, Journal of safety research.