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 R1
--> Simulated Voyages Using Simulation Technology to Train and License Mariners Committee on Ship-Bridge Simulation Training Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996
OCR for page R2
--> NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The program described in this report is supported by cooperative agreement No. 14-35-0001-30475 between the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Academy of Sciences and by interagency cooperative agreement No. DTMA91-94-G-00003 between the U.S. Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Sciences. Limited copies are available from: Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285 Washington, D.C. 20055 800-624-6242 (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 95-72455 International Standard Book Number 0-309-05383-8 Copyright © 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Cover Photo: STAR Center, Dania, Florida Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
--> COMMITTEE ON SHIP-BRIDGE SIMULATION TRAINING WILLIAM A. CREELMAN, Chair, Marine Consultant, Cape Cod, Massachusetts PETER BARBER, The Southampton Institute, United Kingdom ANITA D'AMICO BEADON, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Beth Page, New York PETER H. CRESSY, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth DOWARD G. DOUWSMA, Grafton Group, Gainesville, Georgia PHYLLIS J. KAYTEN, Federal Aviation Administration, Moffett Field, California GAVAN LINTERN, University of Illinois, Savoy DANIEL H. MacELREVEY, Consultant, Wildwood Crest, New Jersey EDMOND L. MANDIN, Consultant, Kentfield, California ROBERT J. MEURN, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York J. NICHOLAS NEWMAN, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge RICHARD A.SUTHERLAND, Consultant, Annandale, Virginia Government Liaisons LARRY DAGGETT, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi ALEXANDER C. LANDSBURG, U.S. Maritime Administration, Washington D.C. CHRISTINE S. MEERS, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. Staff WAYNE YOUNG, Senior Staff Officer (until January 1995) MARLENE R.B. BEAUDIN, Senior Staff Officer (from January 1995) RICKY PAYNE, Administrative assistant (until March 1994) CARLA D. MOORE, Administrative Assistant (from January 1995)
OCR for page R4
--> MARINE BOARD Richard J. Seymour, Chair, Texas A&M University and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California BERNARD J. ABRAHAMSSON, University of Wisconsin, Superior JERRY A. ASPLAND, (retired) ARCO Marine, Inc., Long Beach, California ANNE D. AYLWARD, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts MARK Y. BERMAN, Amoco Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma BROCK B. BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California JOHN W. BOYLSTON, Argent Marine Operations, inc., Solomons, Maryland SARAH CHASIS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, New York CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge BILIANA CICIN-SAIN, University of Delaware, Newark JAMES M. COLEMAN, NAE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge BILLY L. EDGE, Texas A&M University, College Station MARTHA GRABOWSKI, LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York M. ELIZABETH PATÉ-CORNELL, NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California DONALD W.PRITCHARD, NAE, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Severna Park, Maryland STEPHANIE R. THORNTON, Coastal Resources Center, San Francisco, California KARL K. TUREKIAN, NAS, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey E.G. "SKIP" WARD, Shell Offshore, Inc., Houston, Texas ALAN G. YOUNG, Fugro-McClelland BV, Houston, Texas Staff CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate
OCR for page R5
--> Acknowledgments The committee is indebted to many individuals and organizations who generously made presentations and provided information and access to facilities during the course of its work. We first thank our three sponsors' liaisons, Alexander C. Landsburg of the U.S. Maritime Administration, Christine Meers of the U.S. Coast Guard, and Dr. Larry Daggett of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who provided helpful and expert counsel throughout our study. The committee visited a number of facilities during its work. One such facility was the Computer Assisted Operations Research Facility (CAORF) at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York. Rear Admiral Paul Krinsky, Superintendent of the Academy, and Dr. F. Eugene Guest of MarineSafety International, operators of CAORF, and their staffs were particularly helpful. Another simulator facility visited was Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies at Linthicum, Maryland, where our host and guide was Captain Charles Pillsbury and whose expert staff was most helpful. The Seaman's Church Institute simulator facility in New York City, under the direction of Captain Richard Beadon, was also toured by the committee. Subsequently, a subcommittee was generously afforded the opportunity to experience a simulator-based ship-bridge team training course at this facility. The committee appreciates the hospitality of the American Marine Officer's (AMO) Raymond T. McKay Simulation Training and Research (STAR) Center at Dania, Florida, under the direction of Captain Harry Crooks of AMO and Tom Mara of SIMSHIP Corporation. While touring this facility, the committee observed simulation training and held a number of meetings. Captain
OCR for page R6
--> Frank Seitz and Brian Long of SIMSHIP, as well as members of their staffs, were extremely helpful. Other facilities that welcomed and briefed the committee included the following: (1) the Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division in Orlando, Florida, where the committee was hosted by Commander McMeekan; (2) the Naval Amphibious School in Little Creek, Virginia, where committee members rode manned models and observed radio-controlled models in a maneuvering basin; (3) the Delta Airlines Training Facility in Atlanta, Georgia, where each committee member experienced the 767 aircraft simulators; (4) the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, where the committee attended Blake Bush's interactive rules-of-the-road class and used the Academy's ship-bridge simulator; and (5) the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, where the committee chair toured the simulator facilities and observed simulator training of cadets. The committee greatly appreciates insightful presentations made in Atlanta by Captain Ed Moir, systems Manager, Delta Flight Training; Captain Tony Papandrea, manager, Delta Flight Training Operations; Paul Ray of the Federal Aviation Administration National Flight Simulation Program; Thomas Longridge of the Federal Aviation Administration; and Phil Buscovitch, manager, Advanced Qualification Program, Delta Airlines. Many individual ships' pilots and pilot associations gave generously of their time and expertise. Among them were Captain Jack Sparks and Paul Kirschner of the American Pilots' Association; Vincent Black and Captain H.W. Mahlmann of the United Sandy Hook Pilots of New York and New Jersey; Captain Richard Owen of the Association of Maryland Pilots; Captain Edward Cray of the port Everglade Pilots; and Captain S. Orlando Allard, chief, maritime training, the Panama Canal Commission. Technical presentations were also made to the committee by Thomas Hammell of Paradigm Associates; Wei-Yang Hwang of MarineSafety International; Rear Admiral Floyd H. Miller, superintendent of the New York Maritime Academy; George Sandberg of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; Dean Albert Higgins of the Maine Maritime Academy; and Jim Brown of the Harry Lundeberg School of Seamanship. Presentations on desktop and part-task simulations were demonstrated by Franklin Gaines of the Mariners' License Preparation School and Greg Szczurek of Examco and Houston Marine. Each of these people contributed to the knowledge and understanding of the committee. Vessel operators and their consultants shared their valuable insights about simulators training with the committee. Among these were James Sanborn of Maritrans; James Sweeney of Morania Oil Tanker Corporation and their consultant, Captain Herb Groh; John Boylston of Argent Marine; Captain Saunders Jones of American President Lines; and Morris Croce of Chevron Shipping. The committee also benefited greatly from the efforts of committee member Captain Edmond Mandin, who arranged rides for committee members from San Pedro, California, to Oakland aboard American President Line container ships
OCR for page R7
--> President Lincoln and President Roosevelt. The officers and crews of those vessels were extremely helpful to the committee. Committee member Robert Meurn also arranged lodging, tours of simulator facilities, and use of meeting facilities at U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and CAORF, which are most appreciated. The committee is grateful to Wayne Young, staff director from the inception of the study in 1992 through year-end 1994, for his efforts in arranging and coordinating the presentations at our many meetings and to Marlene Beaudin, staff director following Wayne's departure, for the intensive editing and organizational work she so ably performed. Our appreciation goes to the staff work of Ricky Payne who supported our work until his illness in 1994 and to Carla Moore who succeeded him. The committee has been the beneficiary of extraordinary cooperation and helpfulness from all areas of relevant expertise—vessel operators, maritime and aviation training experts, learning system experts, simulator operators, simulation software designers, maritime and aviation licensing officials, and ships' officers and pilots. Their generous assistance made this study possible.
OCR for page R8
--> Preface BACKGROUND The professional performance of merchant mariners, marine pilots, and towing vessel operators has been brought to public attention by major marine accidents and the resulting loss of life, oil spills, and damage to marine ecosystems. Intense public and congressional interest in the safety of marine transportation and the qualification of deck officers and pilots was stimulated by the Exxon Valdez grounding and oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989. National interest has been sustained by newsworthy marine accidents along the nation's seacoasts involving all major categories of commercial vessels—cargo ships, tankers, coastwise and inland towing vessels, and passenger vessels. Faulty human performance has figured prominently in most of these accidents. The U.S.A. Congress, in the Oil Pollution Act 1990(OPA 90 P.L. 101-380), recognized the potential value of simulation in training deck officers and pilots of vessels transporting oil and hazardous substances in U.S. waters. The act directed the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to determine the feasibility and practicality of mandating simulator-based training. Among the recommendation of a subsequent USCG internal study. Licensing 2000 and Beyond (Anderson et al., 1993), were recommendations that the agency do the following: assess computer-based training and testing system for possible application to mariner training and licensing, and conduct research and development for microcomputer desktop training programs.
OCR for page R9
--> Marine simulation in various forms is not new to the marine community. Ship maneuvering simulations, manned models, and radar simulations have been used for specialized training in the marine community since the 1960s. The U.S. Maritime Administration (MarAd) and the USCG conducted extensive operational research into human performance during the 1970s and early 1980s using a computer-based ship-bridge simulator constructed for that purpose: the Computer Aided Operations Research Facility (CAORF) located on the grounds of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. Although this research diminished significantly after the privatization of the CAORF facility in the mid-1980s,the published research, albeit somewhat dated, still serves as a major resource for guiding the use of marine simulation in professional development. Over the past decade, labor unions and private companies have made substantial investments worldwide in the establishment of computer-based marine simulator facilities. These facilities have been used extensively by some shipping and towing companies and marine pilot associations for specialized training and continuing professional development. Radar simulation is now used extensively for prerequisite radar observer training as part of marine licensing and certification requirements worldwide. The port community, including port authorities and marine pilots, is also familiar with shiphandling simulation through its application to channel design. Given this background, the USCG requested that the National Research Council of the National academy of Sciences conduct a comprehensive assessment of the role of ship-bridge simulation in professional development and marine licensing. In requesting the study, the agency indicated that the report should focus on the use of ship-bridge simulation in training U.S. deck officers and pilots of all categories of ships operating in U.S. coastal and harbor waters, as well as operators of coastwise towing vessels. The agency indicated that other forms of marine simulator—such as manned models, limited-task simulators, and desktop computer-based simulators—should be included for comparative purposes. The use of simulation for inland towing vessels is beyond the scope of this assessment. FORMATION OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE The National Research Council convened the Committee on Ship-Bridge Simulation Training under the auspices of the Marine Board of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Committee members were selected for their expertise and to ensure a wide range of experience and viewpoints. Consistent with the policy of the National Research Council, the principle guiding constitution of the committee and its work was not to exclude a potential member with expertise vital to the study because of potential biases, but rather to seek a balance among the members of the committee as a whole.
OCR for page R10
--> Committee members were selected for their experience in marine pilotage, hydrodynamics, marine and adult education theory and practice, marine and aviation simulation, ship and towing vessel operations and management, shiphandling, marine licensing, and human performance. Academic, industrial, government, and engineering perspectives were reflected in the committee's composition. Brief biographies of committee members are provided in Appendix A. The committee was assisted by the USCG, MarAd and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, each of which designated liaison representatives. SCOPE OF STUDY The committee was asked to conduct a multidisciplinary assessment of the role of ship-bridge simulation in the professional development and licensing of mariners responsible for vessel navigation and piloting. Included in the scope of study were the state of practice in applying ship-bridge simulation technology for pilot, individual, and team training; the potential, role, and cost effectiveness1 of ship-bridge simulation for initial maritime education, licensing, skills development, skills maintenance,indoctrination to emerging navigation and ship technologies and determining professional competence; the scientific, technical and professional bases for substituting simulation for practical experience in professional development and in marine licensing; requirements for the development and validation of ship-bridge simulators and simulation; and improvements and research needed in technology and applications to advance the state of practice of ship-bridge simulation for professional development and marine licensing. The committee was asked to focus on computer-based, full-mission and limited- task simulators, full bridge mockups, and the operation of oceangoing and coastwise vessels in coastal waters, harbors, and waterways. Manned models, desktop simulators, virtual reality systems, and other forms of marine simulators are included as alternatives for comparative analysis. COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES As a part of its background research, the committee commissioned a literature search that initially identified approximately 1,400 possibly relevant 1 The committee was not able to make a detailed analysis of the cost effectiveness of ship-bridge simulation. Chapter 2 does, however, contain some information on the range of cost of simulator-based training.
OCR for page R11
--> documents. From the list, 103 of the most relevant documents were selected and abstracted for the committee (Douwsma, 1993). Of that number, the committee found that nearly half were technical papers and reports of research and experimentation from CAORF (primarily from the 1970s and early 1980s),and half were conference and journal articles. During the course of the study, the committee also visited a number of marine and one air carrier simulation facilities, including: CAORF, Kings Point, New York; Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies, Maryland; Seaman's Church Institute, New York; STAR Center, Florida; Naval Air Warfare Center, Florida; Naval Amphibious School, Virginia; U.S. Naval Academy, Maryland; Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Massachusetts; and Delta Airlines Training Facility, Georgia. In addition, the committee received presentations from and participated in discussions with over 30 experts, one of which was a detailed orientation on the experiences of Panama Canal pilots by Captain S. Orlando Allard (see Allard, 1993). Several members of the committee also attended a three-day simulator-based ship-bridge team training course at Seaman's Church Institute. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report was prepared for state and federal government decision makers, marine safety and licensing authorities, mariners, the shipping and coastwise towing industries, marine education and training facilities, and public interest organizations. Moreover, the USCG, on behalf of the United States, has joined a number of other delegations to the International Maritime Organization in urging international requirements and standards for the use of simulation in qualifying mariners. A major revision of the international standards that establish a baseline for knowledge and skill requirements leading to the issuance of marine licenses for seagoing ships is in progress. The report could serve as a resource in addressing and implementing changes in these areas. Chapter 1 reviews the duties and responsibilities of deck officers and marine pilots and introduces issues in the professional development of mariners and the international and national context for mariner training, licensing, and professional development. Chapter 2 describes the classification and types of simulators and summarizes the current state of practice in the use of simulators for training and licensing. This chapter also reviews the use of simulators by the commercial air carrier industry. Chapter 3 discusses the instructional design process and identifies the key elements that comprise an effective training program. Chapter 4 describes the training
OCR for page R12
--> environment produced by computer-based simulators and by manned models and relates that environment to training objectives discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 5 discusses the use of simulation for evaluation of training performance and for assessment of performance in marine licensing. Chapter 6 examines the practice and appropriateness of using marine simulator-based training as a substitute for seagoing service to meet international standards for marine certification. Chapter 7 discusses the validity, validation, and assessment of simulators and simulation. Chapter 8 presents the committee's conclusions and recommendations. Appendix A contains brief biographical sketches of committee members. Appendices B-G provide essential background and contextual and technical information related to the analyses in the main body of the report. REFERENCES Allard, S.O. 1993. Pilot Training at the Panama Canal. Unpublished paper for the Committee on Ship-Bridge Simulation Training. Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Anderson, D.B., T.L. Rice, R.G. Ross, J.D. Pendergraft, C.D. Kakusha, D.F. Meyers, S.J. Szczepaniak and P.A. Stutman. 1993 Licensing 2000 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: Office of Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection, U.S. Coast Guard. Douwsma, D.G. 1993. Background paper: Shiphandling Simulation Training. Unpublished literature review prepared for the Committee on Ship-Bridge Simulation Training, Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R13
--> Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 MARINERS—THEIR WORK AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 13 The Mariner Population 14 U.S. and International Operating Environments 20 Mariner Training, Licensing, and Professional Development 22 References 35 2 USE OF SIMULATION IN TRAINING AND LICENSING: CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE 37 Rationale for Using Simulators 37 Types of Simulators 38 Use of Marine Simulators for Training 51 Simulation in Marine Licensing 56 Use of Simulation in Nonfederal Marine Licensing 59 Cost of Simulator-Based Training 60 Simulation in the Commercial Air Carrier Industry 61 References 65 3 EFFECTIVE TRAINING WITH SIMULATION: THE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN PROCESS 67 Developing an effective Training Program 67 Applying Instructional Design 71
OCR for page R14
--> Determining Training Methods 74 Transfer and Retention of Training 81 Measuring Training Program Effectiveness 83 Simulator-Based Training Instructors 85 Findings 93 References 95 4 MATCHING THE TRAINING ENVIRONMENT TO OBJECTIVES 97 Establishing Levels of Simulation 98 Relative Importance of Simulator Components 98 Simulator Components and Training Objectives 100 Findings 118 References 118 5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND LICENSING ASSESSMENT 120 Understanding Performance Evaluation and Assessment 120 Forms of Evaluation and Assessment 122 Training and Evaluation with Simulators 126 Licensing Performance Assessment with Simulators 130 Issues in Simulation Evaluation of Assessment 131 Findings 140 References 142 6 SIMULATOR-BASED TRAINING AND SEA-TIME EQUIVALENCY 143 International Sea-Time Requirements 143 Definition of Sea-Time Equivalency 144 Sea-Time Equivalency and Mariner Competency 145 Basis for Sea-Time Equivalency 146 Issues Affecting Sea-Time Equivalency Decisions 147 A Systematic Approach to Determining Sea-Time Equivalency 150 Possible Equivalency Applications 152 Findings 155 References 156 7 SIMULATION AND SIMULATOR VALIDITY AND VALIDATION 158 The Fidelity-Accuracy Relationship 159 Physical and Mathematical Simulation Models 160 Current Practice in Validation 163 Facility-Generated Models and Modifications 164 An Approach to Simulator and Simulation Validation 165 Issues and Future Developments 169
OCR for page R15
--> Findings 170 References 171 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 173 Use of Simulators for Training 174 Use of Simulators in the USCG Licensing Program 176 Validation of Simulations and Simulators 180 Research Needed to Improve Mariner Training, Licensing, and Professional Development 181 Funding Simulator-Based Training and Licensing 184 APPENDICES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 189 B International Marine Certification Roles, Responsibilities, and Standards 195 C Professional Licensing Infrastructure for U.S. Merchant Mariners 204 D Hydrodynamics, Physical Models, and Mathematical Modeling 211 E Outlines of Sample Simulator-Based Training Courses 241 F Uses of Simulators: Illustrative Case Studies 246 G Microcomputer Desktop Simulation 272
OCR for page R16
--> LIST OF BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES BOXES 1-1 Selected Definitions 15 1-2 Mariner Professional Development: Training and Licensing 23 1-3 The National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) System of the United Kingdom 34 2-1 Marine Operations Bridge Simulators Classifications Proposed to International Maritime Organization (IMO) 39 2-2 Location of U.S. Facilities with Category I and Category II Simulators 42 3-1 Elements of Instructional Design Process 70 3-2 Training Insights from Mariner Instructors 72 3-3 Instructional Tasks 87 3-4 Samples of Instructor Training Programs, Maritime Academy Simulator Committee (MASC): Draft ''Train-the-Instructor" Course 89 3-5 Samples of Instructor Training Programs, The Southampton Institute, Warsash Maritime Centre, United Kingdom, Full-Mission Ship-Bridge Simulator 90 3-6 Samples of Instructor Training Programs: MarineSafety International Rotterdam 92 4-1 Computer-Generated Image (CGI) Projection Systems 106 5-1 Use of Simulators for Performance Evaluation: The Panama Canal Commission 130 5-2 Comments on Testing Pilots Using Simulators 131 5-3 Typical Summary of a Simulator-Based Check-Ride 132 7-1 Anchoring Evolutions: An example of Needed Research 161 F-1 Third Mate Observations on Value of Ship-Bridge Simulation Cadet Watchkeeping Course, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 258 F-2 Observations of Panama Canal Pilots on the Value of Ship-Bridge Simulation Training 264 G-1 Testing Objectives for Mariner License Testing Devices 278 G-2 Development Criteria for U.S. Coast Guard License Testing Devices 279 FIGURES 2-1 Types of Marine Simulators 41 2-2 View of the Bridge of a Full-Mission Simulator 44 2-3 View of the Bridge of a Full-Mission Simulator 45 2-4 Elements of a Sample PC-Based Simulator Program 46 2-5 Elements of a Sample PC-Based Simulator Program 47 2-6 An example of a Manned-Model Simulator 49 2-7 An Example of a Manned-Model Simulator 50
OCR for page R17
--> 3-1 The Training Process 69 4-1 Levels of Sophistication for Simulator Physical Components 99 4-2 Control and Monitoring Station 101 4-3 Estimate of Relative Importance of Ship-Bridge Equipment for Simulator Training 102 D-1 Paths of Stable and Unstable Ships after a Yaw Disturbance of 1 Degree 218 D-2 Steady Turning Rate Versus Rudder Angle 220 D-3 Spiral Test 221 D-4 Zig-zag Maneuver Response: 5-5 Degree 222 F-1 Cadet Watch Team Grading sheet 252 F-2 Cadet Watch Team Evaluation Sheet 253 F-3 Scores Achieved by 233 Cadet Watchkeeping Teams Undergoing a Simulation-Based Watchkeeping Course During the Period 1985–1994 255 F-4 Plot of Standard Deviation for Simulation-Based Cadet Watchstanding Course 256 F-5 Average and Weighted Average Scores Per Drill of Simulation-Based Watchkeeping Training at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 257 TABLES 1-1 Historical Inventory of World and U.S.-Flag Ocean Ships Over 1,000 Gross Tons 21 1-2 U.S. Coast Guard Ocean-Only License Statistics for Deck Department, Any Gross Tons, Fiscal Years 1986–1993 30 1-3 U.S. Coast Guard Limited and Unlimited License Activity and Number of Facilities with Category I and Category II Simulators: Summarized by Region 31 1-4 U.S. Coast Guard Total Limited and Unlimited License, by Category, 1994 32 D-1 Principal Particulars 219
OCR for page R18
This page in the original is blank.