329
1 INTRODUCTION
ThisisanIndustryacademiaResearchand
Technology (R&T) collaboration with Innovate UK
partfunding including a contribution from the
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).
PartnerswereRollsRoyce,ATLASELECTRONIKUK
Ltd, Lloyd’s Register EMEA, Queen’s University of
BelfastandWarsashMaritimeAcademy.WhenIwas
asked to join this project, I wondered whether it
would be easier to teach the seafarer the science,
ratherthanthescientistthe“InternationalRegulations
forthePreventingCollisionsatSea,”morefamiliarly
knownastherulesoftheroad.
Collisionsatsearesultinlossoflife,damageto
the
environment and economic loss for the shipowner
andthecargoownerandtheircustomers.Thecause
of a significant numberof collisions is the failure of
the human element. Research has shown that
mistakes are made not because of deficient or
inadequateregulations,butbecausetheeducationof
the
officerincharge ofthewatchisdeficientor that
the officer has chosen to disregard those standards
andregulations(Acar,2012).IntheUnitedKingdom,
Merchant Shipping Notice 1781 refers to the “The
Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention
of Collisions) Regulations 1996,” which is statutory
instrumentno.75of
1996.Theycameintoforceonthe
1
st
May 1996 and implemented the changes to the
InternationalRegulationsforPreventingCollisionsat
Sea1972(asamended).Theseregulationscommonly
knownasthe “Collision Regulations”areaseriesof
rulesthatregulatetheinteractionofvesselsatsea.
Theregulationshavebeenwrittenbyhumansfor
the direction of
human application. So they are a
series of rules to be applied to real life scenarios.
Considertwovesselsmovingalmostparalleltoeach
Codifying Good Seamanship into Machine Executable
Rules
I.R.Salter
WarsashMaritimeAcademy,Southampton,UnitedKingdom
ABSTRACT:Enablingunmannedsurfacevesselstocomplywiththecollisionsregulationsisoneofthemost
interestingchallengesfacingtheshippingindustry.The“MachineExecutableCollisionRegulationsforMarine
Autonomous Systems” (MAXCMAS project aims to develop a comprehensive capability and demonstrate
satisfactory execution of marine
‘rules of the road’ by autonomous vessels. This is an Industryacademia
ResearchandTechnology(R&T)collaborationwithInnovateUKpartfundingincluding acontributionfrom
the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory ( Dstl). The project partners include RollsRoyce, ATLAS
ELEKTRONICUKLtd,Lloyd’sRegisterEMEA,Queen’sUniversityof
BelfastandWarsashMaritimeAcademy.
This paper discusses how the regulations that have been written by humans for human consumption were
portrayed to the researchers by the Master Mariner to enable the generation of intelligent MAXCMAS
algorithms.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 12
Number 2
June 2018
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.02.14
330
other on a slightly converging course at nearly the
samespeedReffigure1.
Figure1.Exampleofvesselsconverging
Itisentirelypossiblethatatsometime inthefuture
the two ships may converge. Ship A may consider
that Ship B is an overtaking vessel (consider B was
further away and more astern than above) and
therefore should give way. Whereas Ship B may
considerthatShipAis
acrossingvesselandtherefore
shouldgiveway.Inbothevaluationsofthescenario
theybothconsidertheothervesseltobethegiveway
vessel. This is very similar to an actual case, the
Pacific Glory and the Allegro 1970. Both vessels
closedtoaposition1minutebefore
thecollision,until
theytookactioninextremis,astheyattemptedtoturn
away from each other their sterns came together
(Cahill,2002).
2 EXPLAININGTHECOLLISIONREGULATIONS
Theauthor’spartintheprojectwastothentakethese
seriesofrulesdesignedforhumans andexplainthem
in another format
by the use of diagrams or tables
thatwouldenablethescientisttodesignasystemof
intelligentalgorithmstoguideanautonomousvessel.
Step 1 was to produce a breakdown of the Rules of
theRoad andwhattheconductofvesselsare inthe
three conditions of visibility
i.e. Any condition of
visibility; in sight of one another and in restricted
visibility.
An early consideration was how manoeuverable
vessels actually are, using a couple of books
publishedbythenauticalinstitute,theauthorstarted
investigating at how quickly vessels could alter in
extremis. (Lee and Parker 2007, p129) say
that own
ship should turn through 90° in approximately
shiplengths. (Knight’s 1921, p333) this handbook of
seamanshipshowstheadvanceandtransferofships
in turns, so this is not new. This was considered in
deciding the closest point of approach for different
sizesofvessels.Theother
factorsthatshouldbetaken
into consideration are made clear in Rule 6 (Safe
speed) of the collision regulations. Therefore in any
conditionofvisibility,whenvesselsareinsightofone
another and when in or near an area of restricted
visibility the collision regulations dictate what the
appropriateaction
shouldbeineachcase.Fromthis
we decided to test MAXCMAS on two vessels with
different maneuvering characteristics, a bulk carrier
and a small ferry in both open waters and closed
waters. MAXCMAS uses configurable TCPA and
CPA limits, these limits depend upon the type of
vesselthevisibility
andthetypeofencounter.Inthe
caseofanoncomplianttarget,MAXCMASwillwait
halfthesetlimittobeforemakingalargealterationor
willstop.
3 CONSIDERTHECONDUCTINSIGHTOFONE
ANOTHER
As the rules have been written for human
consumption,theauthorproposeda
wayofshowing
the scientist illustrations to demonstrate what the
regulations and appropriate actions would be in
variouscircumstances.The first diagraminFigure 3
wasproducedtohighlighttheinsightsectorsandthe
actiontakenwhenvesselsenteredthosesectors.
Thesectorsarecoveredbythefollowingrules:
YellowsectorHeadonsituationRule14;
GreensectorCrossing situationRule15
andActionbygivewayvesselRule16;
RedsectorCrossingsituationRule15
andActionbystandonvesselRule17;
Whitesectorovertakingsituation
Rule13.
Additionally,wehavealsotakenintoaccountthat
Rule16mandatesthatthegivewayvesselmusttake
earlyandsubstantialactiontokeepwellclearwhilst
Rule17permitsthestandonvesseltotakeactionto
avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give
way
vessel is not taking appropriate action, or mandates
thestandonvesseltotakeactionwhensoclosethat
collision can no longer be avoided by the actions of
the giveway vessel alone. In these latter scenarios,
thestandonvessel,mustthenprobablymakealarger
alterationof
courseorspeed.
Figure3.InSightdiagram
331
Figure2.BasicCollisionFlowChart(Visio)
Table1.EncounterTable
Figure4GreentoRedEncounter
Oncetherulesarecoded,thenextstagewastotest
thealgorithmonthesimulator.
Table4wasusedtodescribewhichruleappliedto
the encounter that the autonomous vessel was
engagedinandwassubsequentlycoded.
4 CONSIDERTHECONDUCTINRESTRICTED
VISIBILITY
Asimilartablewasproduced
byconsideringthetwo
vesselsaspecttoeachother.
Figure5.RestrictedVisibilitydiagram
332
Table2.RestrictedVisibilityEncounterTable
Early on in the process we looked at some
diagramsonadvanceand transfer soifashipalters
course using say 10 degrees of rudder, how many
ship lengths before she has turned through 90
degrees?IMOmanoeuveringcriteriastatesthatships
mustbeabletoturnthrough90degrees
in4to5ship
lengthsalthoughthiswouldnormallybealastditch
mane.Finelinedshipssuchas passenger shipstend
to have a larger turning circle. So ship size is a
significant factor when considering a manoeuvre as
wellasthespeedthatavesselwillcover
thatdistance
in.
Asanexampleinthe“MAXCMAS”trialsweused
twomodels.
AFerry35.5meterslong;Speedof22kt.
A Bulk Carrier 215.4 meters long; Speed of 16
knots.
Sousing5shiplengths.
TheSmallFerry5x35.5m=177.5metersat22kt
she
covers22x1853.2/60=679.5mperminutesothe
minimumtimeis177.5m/679.5m=15.7seconds.
The Bulk Carrier 5 x 215.4 m = 1072.5 meters at
16ktshecovers16x1853.2/60=494.2mperminuteso
the minimum time is 1072.5m / 494.2m = 2 m
10
seconds.
In MAXCMAS the bulk carrier will begin its
manoeuvrebeforethesmallferry.
However ships do not tend to alter at the last
secondwithmaximumruddertheytendtoalterwith
less rudder atmuch greater distances, to reduce the
loadontheengineandtoincreasethe
comfortofthe
passengers,buttokeepthedesiredeffect.Sothenext
thingtotakeintoconsiderationwastheclosingspeed
of the two vessels. For example two ships
approachingonareciprocalcourseat15knotsmeans
a closing speed of 30 knots, therefore at 6 nautical
milesapart
theywillhiteachotherin12minutes.In
thecaseofoursmallferriesthat’saclosingspeedof
44 knots so at 6 miles that’s time to contact of 8
minutes 11 seconds. So detecting ships at adequate
rangeandmakinganalterationingoodtimebecomes
paramount.
The
responsibilityofvesselssowhentwovessels
meetwhoseresponsibilityisittoaltercourse.Insome
casesitdependsontheaspectoftheothervesseland
its position relative to you, it might depend upon
whetheryoucanseetheothervesselornot,oritcan
depend
onwhattypeofvesselsareencounteringeach
other.ThisiswhereRule18comesintoplayasTables
7and8seektoillustrateandtoalesserextentRule12.
Table3.FurtherEncounterTableNotUnderCommand
It is good seamanship to avoid passing ahead if
possiblebutthatdepends on the sea roomavailable
formanoeuvre.
TheideaofaWhiteport andWhitestbdmaybe
oddjustthinkoftheWhitesectorbisectedintwo.
Table4.EncountertableforRule18ships.
Thenext considerationforcodifying the
regulations was the possibility of specifying which
rulestakeprecedence overtheotherrules.Asstated
above the Rules set out the criteria for making the
decisionastotheresponsibilitybetweenvessels.That
depends upon the vessel type, its aspect to you in
relation
toyouandwhetheryoucanseeitornot.In
theUnitedKingdomMGN369(M+F)hasclarifiedthe
position of the conduct of vessels in restricted
visibility to say “If you cannot see the other vessel
visually, then Rule 19 shall apply, regardless of
whetheryourvesselis
inornearanareaofrestricted
visibility.” Considerations as to whether you need a
persontoseetheothervesselshouldbelefttoanother
forum.Sothepriorityaruletakesisdescribedinthe
rulesthemselves.Dependinguponeachcircumstance
orscenario,differentprioritiesmayseemlogicalfrom
theirpointofview.
333
Prioritieswerediscussedatlengthandwetriedto
comeupwithatablesimilartoabove(seeTable5).As
mariners tended to view the table differently, the
authorwasnotsureifonetablewouldfitallviews.
As the own ship alters course to keep out of
the
way of the other vessel, the relative position of the
othervesselwillchangewithregardtoourselves,this
should not influence which rule applies until the
alteration has resolved the situation. Where the
relative positon of the target vessel changes with
regardtoourownshipcanbe
illustratedbyRule13
Overtakingwhere section(d)says:‐anysubsequent
alterationofthebearingbetweenthetwovesselsshall
not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel
withinthemeaningoftheseRulesorrelieveherofthe
dutyofkeepingclearoftheovertakenvesseluntilshe
isfinally
pastand clear. MAXCMAS uses the TCPA
and when that goes negative it continues on that
courseuntilitreachesthesubwaypoint.
Table5.ContentiousPriorityTable
Innarrowchannelswhenavessel is crossing the
channelthecrossingrule15appliesbutwhenvessels
arenavigatingupanddownthechannelthenrule9
applies. Rule 9 (d) says, “A vessel shall not cross a
narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes
thepassageofa
vesselwhichcansafelynavigateonly
withinsuchchannelorfairway…” However whatif
thevesselisnothamperedthenitmustcomplywith
rule15.EmpireBrentStormont(Cockcroft,2011,page
76).MAXCMASproducesborderswithinthechannel
thatitwillonlycrossinspecificcircumstances.
Apragmaticway
ofdecidingwhatactions that a
shipsmastermighttake,wastopresentthatsituation
to a few Master Mariners in the form of a
questionnaire and then compare the results for
example.
ThefollowingsituationwaspresentedtoaMaster
Marinerwiththefollowingquestion(Fig.6).
The red spot
is our ferry, overtaking the other
ferry, having blue spot on the port bow. Q2, What
actionshouldredspottake?
If there was sufficient time and sea room and if
riskofcollisiondoesnotexistwithyellowspotandit
doesnotcreateanotherclosequarter’ssituationthen
an alteration of course to starboard could be
considered. If however that was not possible then a
markedreductioninspeedtoallowtheothervesselto
passaheadshouldbeused.
Figure6.ViewofMaterial
For collision avoidance manoeuvres to be
successful a large amount of anticipation of the
situation needs to be employed well in advance.
Leaving the manoeuvre to the last minute is a very
risky proposition. Lee and Parker 2007 suggest on
page130thatthereisa fatalzone;dangerzone;high
riskzone;andariskzonedependinguponthevessels
TCPAandhowfarittravelsinthattime.Theydefine
anormalorplannedzoneasthetimeittakesavessel
to travel 10 ship’s lengths. So if your vessel is 200
meters long that would be 2000
meters. If for
calculation purposes we say 1 nautical mile equals
1852meters.Thenat15knotsthat’s27,780metersan
hourso{(2000/27780)*60}=4.32minutes.Theauthor
feels that most mariners navigating vessels of
approximately200metersinlengthwouldbealtering
with a TCPA of at
least 12 minutes, this allows the
marinertouselessrudderbutachievethesameends.
The closet point of approach is the minimum
estimated distance that two vessels will approach
each other based upon their current course and
speeds.Itisusedbyseafarerstohelpranktherisk
of
collisionwhendealingwithmultipletargets.Itisalso
used by masters to leave in there standing orders.
Interestingly when MAXCMAS was run in human
company,thehumanstendedtoalterearlierbutthat
can be configured into MAXCMAS by altering the
TCPA.
Inordertocomeupwithwhat
weconsideredtobe
theappropriateactionsinvarioussituations.Isenta
questionnairearoundtoafewofmycolleagues,inthe
formofpowerpointsusingscenarios verysimilarto
thatinFigure10.ThenIcollatedtherepliesandthen
sentthembacktothesamegroup
tocomeupwithan
agreedactionplanthattheywouldtakeinthevarious
scenariosthatIcameupwith.Thisalsoenabledusto
take scenarios the algorithm had not handled well
and break them down and understand exactly what
wasrequiredineachcaseandaddtoor
developthe
understanding so that could be applied to the
algorithmslogic.
334
5 CONCLUSION
Ifyouputsixmasterstogetherandputascenarioin
frontofthem,youcancomeupwithsevenviewsof
what should be done. The factors that affect human
decisions is an area of cognitive psychology that
expertshavespentlifetimesinvestigating.Inourfield
you
would expect that an individual’s training,
experience, the type of ships they normally sail on
and the stress or pressure they are under will all
influencetheireventualdecision.Theymayalldecide
todooneactionbuthowmuchofanactiontheywill
take and how long they
will continue an action for
will vary. However it does mean that Humans will
occasionallymakeerrors.
At Warsash we did over 300 assessed collision
encountersthatwerecarefullyconstructedrealworld
scenariosincludingrecreationsofhistoricalincidents
and Navigation Aids and Equipment Simulator
Training scenarios accredited by the Maritime
Coastguard
Agency. Some of these were one to one
andsomeweremultipleencountersinbothopenand
restricted waters using both simulated traffic and
vesselscrewedbypersonnelinadjacentsimulators.
The MAXCMAS technology, once trialed and
accepted should enable ships both manned and
unmanned to interact safely. The algorithm
will not
sufferfromemotionalbaggageorfatiguesoItshould
be able to follow a rule based decision system
successfullyallthetimeratherthanmostofthetime.
REFERENCES
[1]Acar,U.,Ziarati,R.andM.Ziarati,2012.Collisionsand
groundings–major causes of accidents at sea. An
investigationintoCOLREGsandtheirapplicationatsea,
pp.4047.
[2]Cahill, R. A. 2002. Collisions and their Causes. 3rd ed
London.NauticalInstitute.p64.
[3]Cockcroft,A.N.andJ.N.F.Lameijer,2011.A
Guidetothe
CollisionAvoidanceRules.Elsevier.
[4]Knight,E.F.HandbookofSeamanship.8thedition
[5]Lee, G.W.U and C.J.Parker, 2007. Managing Collision
AvoidanceatSea.NauticalInstitute.
[6]MorgansTechnical BooksLtd.2011. ASeaman’s Guide
totheRuleOfTheRoad.
[7]Rowe, R.W. 2007. The Shiphandler’s
Guide. Nautical
Institute.
[8]http://www.ialaaism.org/wiki/iwrap/index.php/
Factors_Influencing_Causation_Probability Bayesian
NetworksforCollisionAnalysis
[9]http://www.ialaaism.org/wiki/iwrap/index.php/
Causation_Probability_Modelling