12-Marine-Simulators-Technical-And-Performance-Specifications-A-Paradoxical-Parallelism.pdf

7/25/2019 12-Marine-Simulators-Technical-And-Performance-Specifications-A-Paradoxical-Parallelism.pdf

1/6

Marine Simulators: Technical n d Performance Specifications AParadoxical Parallelism?

OLAIYA, Johnson OIuwatoyinWorld Maritime University

Citadellsvagen 27 2 24, MaIm [email protected]

Maritime Academy of Nigeria1 Celloge Road, P.M.B 1089, Oron,

Akwa Ibom State, [email protected]

STR CT

Th e ne ed for safety of life at sea and the protection of life and the marine environment r es ul ted in t heharmonization of t ra in ing for nav iga tion in the form of the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for seafarers STCW 95 . The Use of s imulator for t ra ining is also something that has come to stay, inview of the advantages accruable from this, and Perfornlance Standards for s imulator use in tra ining seafarersare contained in A-I/I2 training of the STCW Code.

This paper brief ly examines the interes ting development in simulator use where performance standards havesince been developed with relat ive ease, but the expected resul ting technical specifications seem to be takingmuch longer in coming, if they do finally come . Th e fra mew ork in t he form of the S TC W do cum ent wasdeveloped by the Marit ime Safety Committee MSC , giving performance standards while the InternationalMarine Simulators Forum lMSF was assigned the task of developing the technical specifications.

It is revealed that the reasons for the delay l ie as much with the opinions of instructors as with the manufacturersand economic concerns. However, safety of navigation which must remain paramount in the minds of all playersdemands that the technical specifications be developed, and as a matter of urgency.

The International Maritime Organization, non-regional interests and of course those associations representingthe interests of the lecturers and instructors will do well to come together to agree on the technical specificationsbased on the ST W performance s tandards in the interes t of the objectives of the international maritimecommunity.

The works of several scholars and act ive persons in simulator training come into good use, a nd t he irpresentations have been considered.

Key terms: perfornlance standards, simulator training, technical specifications.

1 Introduction

Marit ime Education and Training is a vital par t of the marine affai rs , given that incompetent crew transla te todamage to or loss of property and l ife, and indeed damage to the environment . Furthermore more competent

crew will assure or at least contr ibute to the economic viabi li tyof

the particular sea trade.Fo r

these and more,the Standards of Training, Certification and Wat ch k ee pi ng for s ea far ers , 1978 as a men de d in 1995 de al textensively with the issues of education and training of the merchant navy personnel.

The emphasi s on hands on exper ience canno t be bet te r jus ti fi ed in any voca tion than the mar it ime field, andtra ining on board s hi p is a natural nece ss it y. Over the yea rs h ow eve r, with t he s trides in te chnol og y, t hedevelopment of s imulat ion tools has made it possible to reproduce real l ife s ituations at sea , in the school. Thismeans that some sea experience is obtainable on land, and some uncommon exper iences are also easilyexperienced. Several other advantages do exist especially where the simulator-training tool is properly utilized.

Th e i nt ere st ing s ce na ri o in t he use of simulator for t ra ining present s i t se l f as an i nt ri gu ing paradox ofparal le lisms, where performance standards have since been developed with relat ive ease, but the expectedresulting technical specifications seem to be taking much longer in coming, i f they do finally come. The attempt


2/6

i s to approach the sub ject s t he way they have been conside red; as pseudo-sepa ra te i ssues. This is moreespecially as the International Maritime Organization IMO for some reason deals with one and leaves the otherfor the International Marine Simulators Forum IMSF which for some reason has been unable to bell the cat.

Performance Standards:

The Standards of Training Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers STCW Convention 95 has sinceresulted in performance specifications being developed for marine simulators

2 The eW Input

The establishment of performance specifications for marine simulators was seen as a necessi ty, especiaJJy inview of C ross and Vee nst ra 19 96 who s ta ted inter-ali a In the c as e of s imulators t ra ining there are norecognized standards of performance furthermore, lit tle research has been done into showing of ship-handlingsimulators to be an efficient training tool. While the research remains unavoidable, the onus of this presentationl ies with the former. The 1995 amendments to the Standards of Training Certification for seafarers 1978 had ofcourse taken cognizance of this lapse, n the interest of the objectives of the convention. t is to be noted that thi salarnl was actuaJJy raised before the standards were born.

The Requirements: Basic requirements

A remarkable difference between training and assessment specifications is in A-J/12.1.5 training of t he STCWCode, which sta tes provide an interface through which a tra inee can interact with the equipment , the simulatedenvironment and, as appropria te , the instructor and that in A-I /12.2A assessment which sta tes the same thingwith the exception of the underlined above which is grossly irrelevant in assessment. This is the only differencein the two addresses quoted above , each of which contained f ive sentences , which were exact in every detai lbesides the highlighted difference. This only difference draws the line between training and assessment, and is apointer to two vi tal facts: the STCW did not intend to leave any stone unturned in giving the specifications thatwere cons idered importan t, and the STCW was not going to give speci fi ca tions which were not necessa ry. Abasic understanding s therefore evident. The establishment of perfonnance standards was indeed a vital matter.

3 Additional performance standards

This includes standards for Radar Simulation and Automatic Radar Plotting Aid ARPA simulation. In additionto this, STCW.7/Circ.1 0 ANNEX offers Interim Guidance on Training and Assessment in the Operational useof the Electronic Chart Display and Infonnation System ECDIS simulators

4 Their Purpose

General ly speaking, the requirements are basical ly to ensure that the selected objectives and tra ining tasks areachieved. They are also concerned with the operational capabilities of shipboard equipment and th e errors andlimitations so obtainable, behavioral realism, provision of a control led environment , ins t ructor control andmonitoring, trainee interface with the simulator, instructor where applicable and simulated environment. Theseperformance standards are simply a harmonization of performance and quali ty s tandards . Miurhead 1996stated perfomlance and quality standards of simulators and instructor are many and varied.

In the fi rs t ins tance, g iven tha t s imulator use is d ive rs if ied, and the use of D moving graph ics means tha t agreat demand for programming and memory space is connoted, each type of simulator will therefore perfonn agroup of tasks . For this reason, there are several s imulator types for varying group tasks all of which add upto mar ine s imulat ion. Thi s would pose no problem was it not tha t mar it ime educa tion and t ra in ing i s global lyharmonized thanks to IMO and the tra ining standards must t hen have s ome degree of parity. t thereforebecomes necessary to harmonize the performance standards of the training equipment, major of whi ch is themarine simulator. In order words, this harmonization will aid in ensuring haml0nized training.

Again, owing to the capital-intensive nature of s imulator product ion, the tendency is to cut corners with a viewto cut ting cost, hence producing substandard equipment that may be att ract ive in cer ta in quarters. The dominoeffec t on the indus try w s tem from poor t ra ining. The fact s that s imulators cannot be done awa y withNavigation education is vocational n nature with prominent attention paid to technical abi li ty the only way

out l ies in tra ining through simulators whereby the student can obtain corresponding technical abi li ty Wang1996 . The stipulation of performance specifications w put paid to this.


3/6


4/6

The Users the quagmire

The author has obtained instructor training in simulator use, and has been in some simulator facilit ies in variouslocat ions , including ISSUS in Hamburg, STN Atlas and the GAUSS Insti tu te both in Bremen, all in Germany,t he Ar ab Academy in Egypt , the Wil lem Baren tsz Mar it ime Ins ti tu te , Ter sche ll ing, Nethe rl ands , and hadfamil iari ty programs with others including Poseidon, . The observation is that each sof tware and hardwaremanufacturer approaches simulation in a different way, and sets principles and priorities as it deems fit. In somecases , cer ta in features that are considered basic in some programs are ent irely missing or underdeveloped inothers. After all there is no person or agency empowered to enforce standards, more especially in the absence ofstandards. Worse s ti ll , the arguments are always in favor of these inadequacies. The particular is eitherunimportant or is of minor importance, or scenarios demanding it do not occur. In another argument, the featureis of utmost important because a single occurrence of such scena rio can be fatal. There are a lot of other issues,and the instructor and student are at the receiving end. Famil iari ty of an instructor with a paIiicu1ar simulatione qui pme nt does not m ea n an eas e in fami lia ri ty with another. Rather, it al most certainly me ans a need forreorientation, since it is rare if not impossible to find two simulators which perform the same funct ions havingsimilar operational features. Errors of scenario generation can therefore not be avoided, and more importantly,the same goes for assessment by simulator.

At a brief ing on a par ticular s imulator, a s tudent who is used to another one finds that ins tructor expectation are

very different for the same operation, so are those of the tra ining tool and i ts assessment parameters. Some ofthese parameters have already been mentioned, and others may include dynamic visual and acoustic realism,system-instructor-student interactivity, amongst others. O f course the final end result of inconsistence in trainingis clear, and is not desired.

The MS nitiative

The International Marine Simulators Forum lMSF at the 1993 Marsim dec ided to deve lop an internat iona lstandard for shi p o pe ra ti on training simulators. The FIRST st ag e w as the development of a simulatorc lass if icat ion, fo r which a c lass if icat ion working group was establ ished. At the IMSF meet ing in Norway inAugust 1994, a draft recommendation on simulator classification was submitted.

The recommendations for simulator training, assessment and refreshment were to be dealt with by the SECONDstage, but these were overtaken by . the development of the new STCW Code. An oppor tuni ty s til l exi st s

however, for IMSF members to develop practical training and assessment guidelines given their experience, bymaking contributions to the STCW sub-committee to complete development of Part B of the Code. A scheduled30 month European Union project Task 46 ent it led Marit ime Standardized Simulator Training ExercisesRegister MASSTER , coordinated by ISSUS, Hamburg, commenced in 1996 with the par ticipation of IMSFm em be rs . T he overall o bj ec ti ve b ei ng the inventory of e xi st in g s ce na ri os a nd the development anddocumentation of new ones, based on the assessmen t o f gaps and short comings in the cur rent ly exi st ingscenarios. The resul ting f inal catalogue o f s ce nar ios s er ves as a basis for the harmonisation of maritimeeducation and training for existing simulation facilities, at least in the EU.

The THIRD stage intended to d ev el op p er fo rm an ce s ta nd ar ds a im ed at th e d es cri pt ion o f technicalcharacteristics and capability of various classifications, including instructor stations given the functional trainingrequi rement s they a re des igned to meet . Given tha t IMSF is be st suited for this, es pecially with t he S TCWmandate, this has been too long in coming.

The FOURTH stage was to be a development of a class if icat ion system in which evaluat ion of a simulatorwould lead to class approval. The Quality Standards requirements of Regulation 8 and the Codes may be seento obviate this, whi le indeed they do demand for it. Section B I8 Guidance regarding duality standards statesIn applying quality standards under the provisions of regulation 8 and section A-1I8 to the administration of

i ts cer ti fication system, each par ty should take account of existing national or i nt erna tiona l model s Theintention also included the examination of the sea service equivalence of simulator training.

The amendment of the FIRST stage and subsequent approval was done in 1994, but that was where it ended, andeven the other stages have not been so lucky.


5/6

onclusion

General ly speaking, for reasons of experience, background, technological advantages and otherwise, localmarine industry focus, t radi tion and many other conside ra tions, the re are s imply too many opinions, eachdi ffe ring about too many detai ls, for the re to be a consensus. Thi s was easi ly re fl ec ted by Muirhead 1996 ,

where he indicated that owing to diversi fied opinions on specifications for different types of simulation, theInternational Maritime Organisation lMO , which inc iden ta lly is the paren t of the STCW sub-committeeconcluded that codes do not include detailed technical specifications of simulators. Hence, the line was drawn,and the role of the Marit ime Safety Committee MSC was therefore to come up with performance standardswhile the onerous task o f develop ing techn ical speci fi ca tions would l ie upon the Interna tional Mar ineSimulators Forum IMSF which is composed of the users, manufacturers etc. Expectedly, of course the grouseis greater within IMSF than anywhere else. Here lies the imbroglio.

roposal

Cross 2000 ind icated tha t new I t atlVes were being made in IMSF to restart the of coming to a newclassification, which was scheduled to be ready for the Marsim 2000 and he further stressed that

shoul d be not ed that in a l imit ed b ody such as IMSF, it ha s taken more than years to reach anaccep table dra ft , due to the great d iver si fi ca tion of members, all wanting to be heard and have

influence on this classification. No doubt that such a decis ion for acceptance by a body as diversi fied asIMO will probably cause even greater discussions and deliberations.

Having the re fo re concluded as above , it can be argued tha t the grouse need no t be so great , fo r the technica lspecifications, if they are to objectively meet the goals of the international maritime community - of promotingsafety of l ife, property and the environment by improving standards of n avi gat ion - can not be borne fromanything outside the performance standards clearly itemized in Section A-I/12 of the STCW 95 Code.

therefore behooves the IMSF with the necessary support of the International Maritime Lecturer s Association IMLA , the International Association of Maritime Universities IAMU , and other well meaning recognized butnon-regional maritime bodies to convoke for the purpose of designing achievable technical specifications fromthe IMO document . A working group may be assigned the preliminary task before such a general convocation.Again the IMO must be aware of the fact that it can not adopt the position of an observer in this matter, as,del icate as the prospec ts may seem, it i s ent ir ely necessa ry if the e ffo rt s it IMO has so fa r made regarding

simulation training are not to be trounced.


6/6

eferen es

Bolo A.G, Kunze A.R, Wall A.D. 2000) Complet ing The Circle - 360 degreevisualisation. International Maritime Lecturers Association IMLA -International Navigation Simulator Lecturer s Conference INSLC Simulation

conference papers, 2000. pages 33 - 38

Cross S.J, Veenstra A. W. Leaming progress trends in ship handling simulation,Ninth IMLA Conference, 1996. pages 14 9

Cross S 1 Lecture delivery on Use o Simulators, World Maritime UniversityMET), October, 2001.

Endo M, Kobayashi H, Arai Y, Murata S, Takemoto T, Toya S Mizuno H Senda SThe development o simulator training system. IMLA I N S L simulationconference papers 2000. pages 195 - 203

Hooper J Witt N, Mc Dermott, A. Automatic student feedback and navigationsimulation IMLA INSLC 2000. pages 204 - 2 I2

Intemational Maritime Organisation IMO). Resolution A.422 xi) - Performancestandards for Automatic Radar Plotting Aids ARPA)

IMO. Resolution A.823 19) Perfonnance standards for Automatic Radar PlottingAids ARPA)

IMO. STCW.7 Circ. I I I June 2001. Interim Guidance on Training and Assessmentin the operational use o t Electronic Chart Display and Information SystemECDIS) simulators. Sourced from the world wide webhttp://www.imo.org/inc1udes/bla stDataOnly.a sp/data_id 3D2553/1 O.pdf

IMO. Standards o Training Certification and Watch-keeping for seafarers 1978 asamended in 1995.

ISSUS 1999.) MASSTER. MAritime Standardized Simulator Training Exercises Register. Retrieved July 16from the World Wide Web. http://www.issus.fh-hamburg.de/iss_web/projekte/masster/projectsummary/texte.htm

Muirhead, P Revised STCW convention and the new simulator perfomlancestandards: Some implications for simulator designers, operators and instructors. Marine Simulation andShip Maneuverability Conference MARSIM 1996

Muirhead, P The amended STCW 78 and the use o marine simulators. NinthINLSC conference, 1996. pages 175 - 182

Muirhead, P. Simulat ion, open leaming and the world wide web - opportuni ties for anew training paradigm? IMLA I N S L simulation conference papers 2000.

pages 57 - 63

Murata S Kobayashi H Comparative studies between onboard training and thesimulator-used training.lMLA I N S L simulation conference papers 2000pages 48 - 56

Smith Instructor less training. IMLA I N S L 200 }Jages 264 - 269

Styles A, Jacobs, J Development o a simulator based marine pilot performance andevaluation system. IMLA - INSLC 2000.pages 251 - 263

Wang C The development o navigation simulators and their applications.lNSLCconference, 1996. pages 183 - 186

Documents

12-Marine-Simulators-Technical-And-Performance-Specifications-A-Paradoxical-Parallelism.pdf