329
1 INTRODUCTION
ThisisanIndustry‐academiaResearchand
Technology (R&T) collaboration with Innovate UK
part‐funding including a contribution from the
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).
PartnerswereRolls‐Royce,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 ship‐owner
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 Industry‐academia
ResearchandTechnology(R&T)collaborationwithInnovateUKpart‐fundingincluding acontributionfrom
the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory ( Dstl). The project partners include Rolls‐Royce, 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 7½
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
caseofanon‐complianttarget,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:
Yellowsector–Headonsituation–Rule14;
Greensector–Crossing situation–Rule15
andActionbygive‐wayvessel–Rule16;
Redsector–Crossingsituation–Rule15
andActionbystand‐onvessel–Rule17;
Whitesector–overtakingsituation
–Rule13.
Additionally,wehavealsotakenintoaccountthat
Rule16mandatesthatthegive‐wayvesselmusttake
earlyandsubstantialactiontokeepwellclearwhilst
Rule17permitsthestand‐onvesseltotakeactionto
avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give‐
way
vessel is not taking appropriate action, or mandates
thestand‐onvesseltotakeactionwhensoclosethat
collision can no longer be avoided by the actions of
the give‐way vessel alone. In these latter scenarios,
thestandonvessel,mustthenprobablymakealarger
alterationof
courseorspeed.
Figure3.InSightdiagram