Advertisement

Further Perspectives on Operator Guidance and Training for Heavy Weather Ship Handling

  • Laurie J. Van Buskirk
  • Philip R. AlmanEmail author
  • James J. McTigue
Chapter
Part of the Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (FMIA, volume 119)

Abstract

Historically, mariners have received minimal formal training in heavy weather shiphandling, relying on mentoring and hands on experience to develop shiphandling skills for dangerous environmental conditions. Maritime organizations are increasingly turning to technology to reduce the inherent risks of heavy weather, including operator guidance systems and simulation to train watch personnel. Shiphandling simulators are on the cusp of extending training capabilities from simple maneuvering situations to highly realistic heavy weather scenarios, resulting in vastly improved training effectiveness. This is especially critical as actual time spent afloat may represent proportionately less of a mariner’s total career.

Keywords

Shiphandling simulation Heavy weather training Operator guidance 

References

  1. Alessi, S. M. (1988). “Fidelity in the Design of Instructional Simulations.” Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40–47.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. A. (1986). “Maintenance Training Simulator Fidelity and Individual Difference in Transfer of Training.” Human Factors, 28(5), 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alman, P. R., Minnick, P. V., Sheinberg, R., Thomas, W. L. III (1999). “Dynamic Capsize Vulnerability: Reducing the Hidden Operational Risk”, SNAME Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 107, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, R. F., and Reed, A. M. (2001). “Modern Computational Methods for Ships in a Seaway,” SNAME Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 109: 1–51, Jersey City, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Burns, J. J., Salas, E., and Pruitt, J. S. (1998). “Advanced Technology in Scenario-Based Training”. In Cannon-Bowers, J. A., and Salas. E. (Eds.) Making Decisions Under Stress (pp. 365–374), Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  6. Foxon, M. (1993). “A Process Approach to the Transfer of Training.” Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 130–143.Google Scholar
  7. Gross, D. C.; Pace, D., Harmoon, S.; and Tucker, W. (1999). “Why Fidelity?” In the Proceedings of the Spring 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.Google Scholar
  8. Hays, R.T.; and Singer, M.J. (1989). Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Liu, D., Macchiarella, N. D., and Vincenzi, D. A. (2009). “Simulation Fidelity” in D. A. Vincenzi, J. A. Wise, M. Mouloua, and P. A. Hancock (Eds.) Human Factors in Simulation and Training. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  10. Revised Guidance to the Master for Avoiding Dangerous Situations in Adverse Weather and Sea Conditions. Ref. T1/2.04 (11 January 2007). MSC.1/Circ. 1228.Google Scholar
  11. Thompson, T. N., Carroll, M. B., and Deaton, J. E. (2009). “Justification for Use of Simulation” in D. A. Vincenzi, J. A. Wise, M. Mouloua, and P. A. Hancock (Eds.) Human Factors in Simulation and Training. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  12. Zhang, B. (1993). “How to Consider Simulation Fidelity and Validity for an Engineering Simulator.” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 298–305.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurie J. Van Buskirk
    • 1
  • Philip R. Alman
    • 1
    Email author
  • James J. McTigue
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations