Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
The development of simulation to teach BRM courses over time is reviewed in light of changes in the industry and new
technology. The effect of these industry changes, new technologies, and the way they have changed the role of the
watchstander are examined. Although the basics of bridge watch-keeping essentially remain the same, the methods used
to accomplish these basic tasks have changed. In addition to industry trends and new technology on the bridge there is
an increased awareness of how the human element and leadership contributes to maritime causalities that should be
addressed in a BRM course. The requirements for bridge simulators, instructor stations and qualifications for BRM
simulator instructors needed to keep pace with developments in the maritime industry are presented.
1. INTRODUCTION
CAPT. Daniel MacCalrevy, author of Shiphanding for the Mariner has stated the hardest part to learn (in standing a
bridge watch) is the complexity of decision making; the prioritization of conflicting problems and the resolution of
competing (and sometimes contradictory) information. Bridge Resource Management (BRM) courses must be
designed to address these problems as they exist in todays industry setting. These courses have been taught for over 30
years. During this period technology on the bridge has changed, management styles have been modified and there is an
increased awareness of the role of the human element has in contributing to maritime casualties. In order to have BRM
courses keep pace with industry developments simulator bridge equipment need to be kept current, course prerequisites
must be established, course content revised, instructor qualifications amended and student monitoring improved.
Figure 1 Figure 2
Figure 1 is a view of a new LNG ship in 1980 when BRM courses were first being offered. Although considered state of
the art at the time the resources available to the watch-stander were fairly basic. Two RADARs, ARPA, steering stand,
RPM and rudder indicators and basic light and alarm panels were what the OOW had to work with. Compare that to a
similar type vessel, delivered recently, with the multitude of computer screens in Figure 2. Pictures are worth a
thousand words and it is clear by comparing the two figures that the bridge environment is changing drastically. How
people work with this onboard technology will be the key to unlocking the potential advances this equipment promises.
(11) The 1980 bridge had few technical resources that the watch officer needed to have knowledge of and the skill to
operate. Although considered state of the art their function was straight forward and their operation easily taught. This
not the case on the modern bridge, equipment such as ECDIS, which is becoming the prime resources on the bridge,
combining several tasks previously accomplished separately. It is complex with multiple capabilities, functions and
associated menus. Safe navigation will be closely tied with the OOWs knowledge, understanding and ability to operate
this equipment.
7. COURSE CONTENT
A review of The IMO course 1.22 Ship Simulator and Bridge Teamwork and several BRM course outlines obtained on
the internet reviled course content and length differ considerably. The course length varies from 24 to 40 hours. The
IMO model course is 40 hours. Maritime Academies in the United States offer the course over the length of a semester
of 13 to 15 weeks which is approximately 40 hours contact time. This arrangement does have the advantage of the
instructor being able to give reading assignment as well as homework and it gives the cadets the opportunity for
reflection and reviewing between simulator exercises. All of the courses reviewed split the time allocation in the course
roughly 50% lecture and 50% simulator exercises. With regard to course content it was noted that there was also a
variance in the topics covered. Most of the variance can be attributed the updating of courses to include human element
topics addressing the fact that 80% of all casualties have been attributed to human error. Expanding the course content
to include the non-technical human element competencies such as leadership, management, and cultural awareness
places time management challenges for the instructor. IMO Model Course 1.22 has two different outlines presented with
slightly different topics being covered. Figure 3 indicates all the topics listed in the model course. Although some
human factors are included, the course seems to be outdated. By comparison Figure 4 list the topics found in other
courses reviewed where the majority of subjects covered deal directly with the human element. It must be noted that not
all the subjects listed in Figure 4 where found in one course. The list is computation of topics found in all the courses
reviewed. All the courses reviewed had a bridge equipment familiarization exercise which is important as the equipment
on the simulator may be different from what the student has been using. This is especially the case with regard to the
ECDIS. Many courses, including the IMO model course 1.22, have learning objectives devoted to and have dedicate a
considerable amount of simulator time to shiphandling skill development. I have indicated these subjects in the IMO
course with an asterisk in Figure 3. As stated in section 6 the basics of shiphandling should be a prerequisite to a BRM
course. Each simulator exercise should center on planning and carrying out a voyage with learning objectives
concentrating on particular elements associated with bridge resource management. Passage planning is a key element of
courses and should remain so. Captain A.J. Swift has an excellent chapter that contains all the elements of creating a
proper passage plan in his book Bridge Team Management . This topic, in detail, needs to remain in BRM courses
8. INSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATIONS
As in all simulator instruction the instructor remains the most important element in conducting a successful Bridge
Resource management Course. Dr. Doward Dowsma, who was instrumental in developing the first Train the Simulator
Instructor course in the United States, stated For us as facilitators and instructors, structured experience by simulation
is a lot harder than being a didactic teacher. STCW sates in A-1/6, Qualifications of instructors, supervisors and
assessors, that When training being conducted involves using a simulator;
The instructor employed should have received appropriate guidance in instructional techniques involving the use of
simulators.
Have gained practical operational experience on the particular type of simulator being used for the training.
The simulator instructor therefor must have completed a train the Simulator Instructor and Assessor course to be
qualified. Taking the standard train the trainer and assessor course does not meet the criteria needed to be a qualified
simulator instructor. A course having the content found in IMO Model Course 6.10 Train the Simulator Trainer and
Assessor and experiential learning methodologies is necessary. The Model Course 6.10 deals with the relevance of
simulator in maritime training and the simulator pedagogy associated with the use of training on a simulator. The
mistake made by many institution administrators is that the courses given by the simulator manufacture, at the time of
purchase or when new hires are added to the faculty, meet the Train the Simulator Instructor requirements. They do not.
They focus on the correct handling of the simulator hardware and software and contribute to the requirement that the
instructor have gained practical operational experience on the particular type of simulator being used but do not cover
the pedagogy of simulation. STCW also states Each party shall ensure that instructors and assessors are appropriately
9. MONITORING
Careful monitoring of the simulator exercise and trainees during a simulation scenario is of prime importance. It is by
closely monitoring the scenario in progress that the instructor can detect errors made by the trainees. These errors
include both active errors and latent errors. Active errors are those that are felt immediately and will have an impact on
the outcome of the exercise. Latent errors are subtle, lay hidden for a considerable amount of time and may or may not
affect the outcome of the exercise. (10)
Bridge Resource Management (BRM) is the effective management and utilization of all resources, human factors and
technical factors, available to the Bridge Team to ensure the safe completion of the vessels voyage. If one is to teach a
highly effective BRM course the use of all these factors need to be monitored closely. The instructor must monitor the
overall exercise to assure that the designed learning objectives are being met. The technical factors that need to be
monitored are listed in Figure 5 and the human factors that need to be monitored are listed in Figure 6.
The list is long and it is a challenge for the instructor to monitor all the items necessary and run the simulation exercise
to meet specific learning objectives. This is especially true when running a complicated exercise or if you have more
than one bridge team running simultaneously either independently of each other or interactively. The IMO MC 1.22
Figure 7 Figure 8
Pictures courtesy of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
Figure 7 shows a simulator control station with bridge views at the top, the simulator situation display directly in front
of instructor. To the left of the instructor is a repeater of the bridge ECDIS and repeaters of both bridge RADAR/ARPA
units. Figure 8 shows the color monitors for four lowlight TV cameras located on the bridge. All four can be panned and
zoomed so the instructor can view the bridge activity from all angles. The screen on the lower right is focused on the
chart table so the instructor can watch the trainee plot positions. One of the cameras can be focused and zoomed in on
the engine control or, alarm panel if desired. It is highly recommended that a simulator operator be at the control station
with the instructor to assist the instructor in the operation of the simulator. This enables the instructor to monitor the
trainees closely without having to contend with the technical operation of the simulator.
10. CONCLUSIONS
Maritime casualties have decreased since the introduction of Bridge Resource Management into training schemes.
However 80% of casualties are still attributed to the human element and failure of proper Bridge Resource
Management. Examination of course BRM outlines indicated there are several versions of BRM courses being offered.
They differ in length and content. Many follow the guidance of IMO Model course 1.22 others have been altered to
include more human factor content. However the specific topics for the content and depth of coverage of the topics have
not been established or standardized. A BRM course is a capstone course and prerequisites courses must be established
to include all the skills need to stand a bridge watch. Instructors qualifications must include in depth knowledge of
operation of all bridge equipment, experiential learning, simulator training methodology, and human factors in addition
to traditional navigation and shiphandling skills Updating of the IMO Model course 1.22 is needed and could provide
the standardization of BRM courses necessary.
Captain Sandberg FNI earned a B.Sc. in Meteorology and Oceanography from the State University of New York
Maritime College in 1966 and a M.Sc. in Applied Sciences from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in
1978 . He sailed on Merchant Vessels for over twenty years including serving as master. He taught at the United States
Maritime Academy at Kings Point NY for 25 years serving as Professor, Head Department of Marine Transportation
and Director of Nautical Science Simulation. He retired in 2011 as Professor Emeritus and now performs consulting
services specializing in Maritime Education and Training.