Journal is indexed in following databases:
- SCOPUS
- Web of Science Core Collection - Journal Citation Reports
- EBSCOhost
- Directory of Open Access Journals
- TRID Database - Transportation Research Board
- Index Copernicus Journals Master List
- BazTech
- Google Scholar
2025 Journal Impact Factor - 0.8
2025 CiteScore - 1.6
ISSN 2083-6473
ISSN 2083-6481 (electronic version)
Editor-in-Chief
Associate Editor
Prof. Tomasz Neumann
Published by
TransNav, Faculty of Navigation
Gdynia Maritime University
3, John Paul II Avenue
81-345 Gdynia, POLAND
e-mail transnav@umg.edu.pl
The Conning of a Ship in a Digitalized Environment: Art or Science?
1 Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada
ABSTRACT: Maritime pilotage remains a critical safeguard for navigational safety, yet rapid advances in digital navigation technologies, particularly Portable Pilot Units (PPUs) are reshaping how pilots perform the conning of a ship. While PPUs enhance situational awareness and data integration, concerns persist regarding their influence on traditional pilotage skills, human factors, and decision-making in dynamic marine environments. This qualitative study draws on semi-structured interviews with 20 licensed maritime pilots representing 7 countries and a combined total of over 295 years of pilotage experience and over 190 years of PPU use. Participants ranged in age from 43 to 68 years (mean 52.3), with operational experience spanning bulk carriers, container vessels, tankers, cruise ships, and LNG carriers. 55% reported daily PPU use, while 45% used PPUs selectively. Data was analyzed thematically, guided by a framework addressing technology adoption, situational awareness, decision-making processes, workload, and safety culture. Findings reveal a nuanced relationship between PPU use and pilotage performance. 85% of participants identified benefits, such as improved precision in confined waters, enhanced pre-arrival planning, and greater confidence during low-visibility operations. Conversely, 70% expressed concerns over potential over-reliance on digital displays, 80% noted risks to maintaining core shiphandling skills, and only 20% considered current STCW training adequate for safe, efficient performance on increasingly automated bridges. PPUs are best understood as complementary tools rather than replacements for traditional pilotage expertise. Effective integration requires targeted training, regulatory guidance, and a continued emphasis on experiential knowledge. This study highlights the need for balanced adoption strategies that preserve human decision-making while leveraging digital advantages.
KEYWORDS: Safety of Navigation, Maritime Education and Training (MET), e-Navigation, Decision Support Systems, Human Factors and Crew Resource Management, STCW Implementation and Maritime Policy, Manoeuvring in Port Area and Pilot Navigation, Electronic Navigational Charts and ECS/ECDIS Systems
REFERENCES
Adnav/Navicom Dynamics. (n.d.). Accuracy of the wireless PPU [Technical note]. Navicom Dynamics.
Alexander, L., & Casey, N. (2008). Use of portable piloting units by maritime pilots. University of New Hampshire, Center for Coastal & Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center.
Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience. (2021). Understanding skill decay and skill maintenance in first responders: A review. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 36(3), 45–52.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority. (2024). Portable pilot units. https://www.amsa.gov.au/portable-pilot-units
Bahner, J. E., Hüper, A. D., & Manzey, D. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 688–699. - doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001
Barnett, M., Gatfield, D., & Pekcan, C. (2018). Maritime pilotage and human factors. Routledge.
Casner, S. M., Geven, R. W., & Williams, T. C. (2014). The retention of manual flying skills in the automated cockpit. Human Factors, 56(8), 1506–1516. - doi:10.1177/0018720814535628
Chauvin, C. (2011). Human factors and maritime safety. Journal of Navigation, 64(4), 625–632. - doi:10.1017/S0373463311000142
Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J.-P., & Langard, B. (2013). Human and organizational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26–37. - doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006
CHIRP Maritime. (2020). ECDIS/AIS position data affecting a PPU [Safety lesson report]. Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme.
Clear Seas. (2024). Technology implications for marine pilotage. Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE.
Dekker, S. (2011). Drift into failure: From hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. Ashgate.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64. - doi:10.1518/001872095779049543
Endsley, M. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. - doi:10.1177/0018720816681350
Endsley, M. R., & Kaber, D. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462– 492. - doi:10.1080/001401399185595
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2012). Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(1), 121–127. - doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. SAGE International Maritime Organization. (2003). Resolution A.960(23): Recommendations on training and certification and operational procedures for maritime pilots.
IMO. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/ KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResoluti ons/AssemblyDocuments/A.960(23).pdf
International Maritime Organization. (2021). IMO MASS regulatory scoping exercise: Report of the Maritime Safety Committee. IMO.
International Maritime Pilots’ Association. (2021). Guidelines on the design and use of portable pilot units (PPUs) (Rev. ed.). IMPA.
Klostermann, M., Manca, D., & Yang, K. (2022). Factors influencing attenuation of skill decay in high-risk industries: A scoping review. Safety Science, 147, 105597. - doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105597
Kuwornu, B. (2023). Impact of portable piloting units on the situation awareness of maritime pilots (Master’s thesis, World Maritime University). WorldCat.
Lutzhoft, M., Porathe, T., & Praetorius, G. (2019). Human-centred maritime autonomy: An ethnography of the future. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1357(1), 012032. - doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1357/1/012032
Markus, J., Andersson, J., & Lindström, M. (2024). Situational awareness and decision- making in maritime operations: A cognitive perspective. Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 14692(3), 165–189. - doi:10.1007/978-3-031-60728-8_14
Nautical Institute. (2014). The navigator: Special issue on ECDIS. Nautical Institute.
Nautical Institute. (2022). Pilotage technology: A look inside a pilot’s technology toolkit. The Nautical Institute.
Port Technology International. (2006). The new generation of portable pilot aids. Port Technology International, 30, 85–88.
Port Technology International. (2019). Portable piloting units: Models and hardware performance. Port Technology International, 83, 44–48. - doi:10.12968/S1356-9252(23)40214-6
Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., Read, G. J., & Jenkins, D. P. (2020). Human factors challenges in future aviation: The automation paradox. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64(1), 111–115. - doi:10.1177/1071181320641010
San Francisco Bar Pilots. (2015). Navigation technology: Common AIS pilot plug errors [Technical note]. San Francisco Bar Pilots.
Sharma, S., Singh, R., & Kumar, A. (2021). Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of navigators for autonomous shipping: A phenomenological study. Maritime Policy & Management, 49(5), 635– 652. - doi:10.1080/03088839.2021.1914874
UK Hydrographic Office. (2022). Putting S-102 to the test: Learning from sea trials with the Port of London Authority and SEAiq Pilot. UKHO.
Westin, C., & Lundberg, J. (2025). A survey on Swedish maritime pilots’ trust, training, understanding, and use of the PPU predictor automation. Cognition, Technology & Work. - doi:10.1007/s10111-025-00793-x
Citation note:
Leclerc Y.: The Conning of a Ship in a Digitalized Environment: Art or Science?. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 20, No. 3, doi:10.12716/1001.20.03.03, pp. 547-556, 2026
Other publications of authors:
File downloaded 5 times
