US Navy destroyer collision

[hpeer]

Astrid and 30years,

Can you each please point to where the AIS display is in the respective bridge arrangements, relative to the OOD.

[Snowpetrel]

Here is the most recent bridge I spent any time on. Its an old ship, built in 1989. The bridge is very open and works well.

[Astrid]

AIS is, if I recall, at the navigator's station, along with the navigation radar and chart plotter, towards the rear of the bridge with an additional display in the Ops Room. I am a little fuzzy over the details since it was just coming into use about the time my enlistment ended.
At any rate, the OOD would not be able to see the display from his position without going to the Navigation Station to see for himself. I believe there is a multipurpose display he can use at his position to switch between systems--AIS, chart plot, etc, but for the most part he depends on his bridge team to provide him with information so as to avoid becoming fixated on a particular task other than his own as OOD.

[30yearslater]

Hpeer, AIS along with GPS and computers hadn't been invented yet. It was a very clear bridge. Visually the helm could see 270 degrees. We had a short and long range Radar, Gyro Repeater at the helm and one on each wing, a magnetic compass, Loran C, ADF, Propeller pitch controls, a phone to call the engine room, a chart table, chronometer and a coffee pot. We did quite well spotting traffic and without all the gadgets we kept our eyes on the world around us. Imagine that, old school mariners. Actually most of our Warrant Officers had been Merchantmen before joining the Army so were well skilled to mentor the rest of us on the task of sailing the ship first without reliance on technology.

[El Pinguino]

In the photos I posted the AIS info is available on both radars and the ECDIS at the front of the bridge amidships and also on slave ECDIS displays on the bridge wings....

[hpeer]

In summary, one difference is on a (this one at least) military ship the AIS is not directly viewable by the OOD but on the civilian ship it is prominent.

The naval officer relies upon a subordinate to verbally state AIS information.

It may be just me, because I have a graphical mind, but getting verbal AIS info (it starts as graphical then is translated into verbal, communicated by voice, and then the OOD needs to visualize it again in his mind) would be confusing as all get out.

Maybe that's why they didn't use it on the Porter??????

[30yearslater]

You may have hit the nail on the head hpeer. The blizzard of bull$hit whirling around from a dozen different directions would confuse a Cray computer. Perhaps separating the functions would be a better approach. The only people on the bridge are sailors and the rest get stuffed elsewhere with the gadgets. Captain says go here and watch personnel operate the ship autonomously. The others go about their duties with their gadgets. Eliminate the information overload and allow each to focus on their tasks. Works in aviation with sterile cockpit requirements.

[Astrid]

Re: US Navy destroyer collision
You may have hit the nail on the head hpeer. The blizzard of bull$hit whirling around from a dozen different directions would confuse a Cray computer. Perhaps separating the functions would be a better approach. The only people on the bridge are sailors and the rest get stuffed elsewhere with the gadgets. Captain says go here and watch personnel operate the ship autonomously. The others go about their duties with their gadgets. Eliminate the information overload and allow each to focus on their tasks. Works in aviation with sterile cockpit requirements.

That is how it is supposed to be done on naval vessels, each system monitored and controlled by the person at that station, with that person advising the OOD or captain of any developing situation. The captain or OOD should be using a macro management technique to maintain oversight. If a new contact appears on radar, then the navigator would report that to the OOD who should then ask the navigator for recommendations. In other words, the OOD and the various bridge personnel should be working as a team. This, however implies that the OOD or capatin on the bridge must have faith in his team. Unfortunately, things go wrong for captains or OODs who either lack faith in their team or who prefer to micro manage and use hands on control, since no one person can manage everything on their own with running the risk of becoming fixated on what might be the wrong task.

This micro management technique does not encourage subordinates to offer advice or recommendations to a superior; indeed, micromanagers are often of a personality that instills wariness or fear in subordinates. It reminds me of a scene from The Caine Mutiny where Captain Queeg, whose vessel has been towing a gunnery target, orders the helmsman 'right standard rudder' then gets into a heated discussion with his officers over a sailor not dressed according to regulations and forgets about the helmsman who in accordance with orders has kept the helm over, with the result that the Caine steams over the towline.

[Pelagic]

C'mon guys, avoiding a containership in open seas and excellent conditions is not rocket science!
Attributing excuses to technical overload or systematic delegation is just BS.

Any Watch keeper or OOD who cannot manage a proper lookout with all the personnel available to them, was either incompetent or grossly derelict and lax in performing their duty.

You automatically micromanage your crew until satisfied they have your back!

In dense traffic, if I ever walked onto the bridge and the WK and Lookouts were all staring at the Radar Monitors instead of peering out of their lookout stations..... The air turned blue!

[hpeer]

Intend to be with Pelagic, if just by personality type. It should be heads up navigation.

I think it's more about using the right tool and having it available. The right tool, #1 go to, in commercial traffic is AIS. It is the best available supplement to your eyes.

Elsewhere someone insinuated that, because it is a new add in system, it is likely a stand alone computer, not intigrated into the EIDS/electronic charts.

The display should be available at a glance so that the OOD can have that info available, graphically. Getting it second hand makes him visualize it. That additional mental processing required to hear, comprehend, visualize, and mentally integrate takes the person inside their head, away from the real world. AIS does that integration real time freeing your mind to think.

Recall the Porter, o one there wanted that to happen, it it did, why? They passed the first ship and only then became aware of the second ship by visual sighting. They eyeballed the ship and the Captain made a mistake. Clearly the OOD thought it was a bad idea, but didn't want to argue. AIS would have calculated the CPA real time and given the OOD more authority to challage the Captain taking the argument from the realm of opinion to fact. "Why don't we just go this way?" "Sir, AIS indicates collission,sir!"

As second point.

When in combat or facing a hostile things are different. They are trying to hide, so then the focus is on identifying Radar theats. But then the Captain would have been on the bridge.

So maybe, just maybe, that is a failure, not recognizing the difference between a threat posture and a transit posture and using the appropriate tools for those two very different situations.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Astrid and 30years,

Can you each please point to where the AIS display is in the respective bridge arrangements, relative to the OOD.

In Astrid's bottom photo, the radar and ECPINS (electronic charting system)(large blue cabinet) are to the right of the CO's chair - AIS info is available to both devices, if enabled by the OOW. The radar image can also be overlaid on the ECPINS. How the displays are set up really depends on personal preferences. The only reason the OOW needs to attend to the AIS main panel, is to change ownship settings.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Recall the Porter, o one there wanted that to happen, it it did, why? They passed the first ship and only then became aware of the second ship by visual sighting. They eyeballed the ship and the Captain made a mistake. Clearly the OOD thought it was a bad idea, but didn't want to argue. AIS would have calculated the CPA real time and given the OOD more authority to challage the Captain taking the argument from the realm of opinion to fact. "Why don't we just go this way?" "Sir, AIS indicates collission,sir!"

The AIS and ARPA calculate the CPA in near real time, with a lag and other errors but they only calculate for steady state conditions not for any manuvers unless some sort of trial manuver facility is provided, as all IMO approved ARPA's have.

I am not sure how many Ships officers routinely use the ARPA trail manuver facility. The problem is they are often poorly implemented, and hard to use or interpret. When I was at sea most OOW's just estimated how much and when to alter course, and its effects on CPA. Since then the trail manuver has been taught on ARPA courses so prehaps it is more commonly used now days?

The trail manuver facility is very powerful. But you need to be very fluent with the system to make it work effectively and quickly without getting too bogged down in it. You need to have plenty of time, it is certainly not a close quarters maneuvering tool, more like the old paper based radar plotting techniques.

On true motion you can do a crude version of the trial manuver by swinging your vector around to the new course with the EBL and VRM to simulate a course change. It doesnt allow for any swinging or time delay but gives a rough idea of the outcome quickly. PADS and PPC can also help but get pretty confusing in heavy traffic.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

The trail manuver facility is very powerful. But you need to be very fluent with the system to make it work effectively and quickly without getting too bogged down in it. You need to have plenty of time, it is certainly not a close quarters maneuvering tool, more like the old paper based radar plotting techniques.

Funny you mention 'trial manoeuvre' as I was just thinking of that too. One of the systems I worked with (in the distant past) would hold the trial mnvre until it was manually de-selected. I'm not sure if any ARPAs still do that, or the one on the Fitz does, or not; but it would give some explanation - if someone had done a trial, left it on and walked away; along comes the OOD, looks at the vectors going where he wants them to, thinks all's well and goes back to whatever else he was doing...
I do know that at 0130 in the morning, no-one is rested well enough to be thinking with 100% clarity.

[Snowpetrel]

Yeah, always a danger with trial manoeuvre. I guess the Big 'T' plastered across the screen might help, but I do recall reading one incident report where the radar acidently being on trial manoeuvre or problems using the facility may have been a contributing cause.

All of the units I have played with default back to normal after the action timer has elapsed, and sound an alarm at this time. But if you set the time far too long it would stay locked in trial mode, potentially being very misleading.

[Pelagic]

The Trial maneuver is great for multilateral situations with a number of crossing/overtaking ships as long as you implement properly with a realistic delay.

In a developing multilateral close quarter situation when called onto the Bridge by a flustered Mate, after navigation check of index lines, I would switch to ground stabilized True Motion display to better appreciate how the other Bridge viewed targets around them (aspect) and to see their course changes more clearly