Bridge design on Dutch merchant vessels; an ergonomic study. Part II: First results of a questionnaire completed by captains, navigating officers and pilots. Part IV: Evaluation of standards and recommendations by Means of a static mock-up

COMMUNICATION No. 35 S

September 1973

S N/294

NEDERLANDS SCHEEPSSTUDIECENTRUM TNO

NETHERLANDS SHIP RESEARCH CENTRE TNO

SHIPBUILDING DEPARTMENT

LEEGHWATERSTRAAT 5, DELFT

BRIDGE DESIGN ON DUTCH MERCHANT VESSELS;

AN ERGONOMIC STUDY

PART II: FIRST RESULTS OF A QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETED BY

CAPTAINS, NAVIGATING OFFICERS AND PILOTS

(ERGONOMISCHE STUDIE BETREFFENDE DE BRUG

VAN NEDERLANDSE KOOPVAARDIJSCHEPEN)

(DEEL II: EERSTE RESULTATEN VAN EEN VRAGENLIJST,

INGEVULD DOOR KAPITEINS, STUURLIEDEN EN LOODSEN)

by

J. MORAAL, H. SCHUFFEL, A. LAZET

(lnstituut voor Zintuigfysiologie TNO)

BRIDGE DESIGN ON DUTCH MERCHANT

VESSELS; AN ERGONOMIC STUDY

The results of the first phase of this study are

sum-marized in three communications, e.g.:

34 S Part I:

A SUMMARY OF ERGONOMIC

POINTS OF VIEW (DUTCH)

(ERGONOMISCHE

UITGANGS-PUNTEN)

A. LAZET, H. J. SCHUFFEL, J. MORAAL,

H. J.

LEEBEEK

and H.

VAN DAM

35 S Part

FIRST RESULTS OF A

QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETED

BY CAPTAINS, NAVIGATING

OFFICERS AND PILOTS

J. MORAAL, H. SCHUFFEL

and

A. LAZET

36 S Part III: OBSERVATIONS AND

PRELIMINARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. LAZET, H. SCHUFFEL

and

J. MORAAL

© Netherlands Ship Research Centre TNO, 1973

VOORWOORD

Bij het ontwerpen van een optimaal navigatie komplex zijn de meningen van de bij navigatie betrokken officieren m.b.t. brug-indeling en uitrusting zeer belangrijk. Op een aantal onderdelen kunnen de meningen afhankelijk van ervaring, opleiding en per-soonlijke smaak van de bij de navigatie betrokken officieren zeer verdeeld zijn.

Om een indruk te krijgen van heersende meningen m.b.t. een aantal onderwerpen verband houdende met het brugontwerp, is een vragenlijst samengesteld. Deze vragenlijst bestaat voor het grootste gedeelte uit verklaringen welke zijn afgelegd door offi-cieren, tijdens interviews welke zijn afgenomen gedurende een aantal korte reizen op Nederlandse koopvaardijschepen.

De vragenlijsten zijn ingevuld door kapiteins en stuurlieden van enige grote Nederlandse rederijen en door loodsen.

Het resultaat van dit onderzoek zal een nuttige aanvulling zijn van de resultaten verkreuen in het eerste deel van het onderzoek welke zijn verzameld in mededeling 34 S. deel I van deze serie rapporten. Bestaande kennis en ervaring van het Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie, alsmede een groot aantal gegevens betreffende de ergonomische aspekten van het brugontwerp, speciaal gericht op grote tankers, containerschepen en moderne vrachtschepen zijn hierin vastgelegd.

Tesamen zullen de resultaten uitmonden in een derde mede-deling, waarin voorlopige aanbevelingen worden gedaan voor

inrichting en indeling van het navigatie komplex voor eerder

genoemde scheepstypen.

HET NEDERLANDS SCHEEPSSTUDIECENTRUM TNO

PREFACE

In designing an optimal bridge, the opinions on bridge layout by the officers being concerned in ship navigation are very

important. The opinions of the navigating officers however, in some cases scatter wideley due to different training, experience and personal liking.

In order to obtain an impression of the prevailing opinions on a number of subjects related to bridge lay-out, a questionnaire

was compiled. For the main part this questionnaire contains

statements made by navigating officers during interviews on a number of short voyages on board of ships of the Dutch merchant service.

The questionnaire was completed by captains, first, second and

third officers from a number of big Dutch shipowners and a

group of pilots.

The information drawn from the questionnaire represents a

valuable supplement to the ergonomic points of view, as given

in communication 34 S, part one of this series dealing with

bridge design. In this communication know-how of the Institute of Perception TNO and a great many data extracted from litera-ture are collected.

This study will eventually result in part III where preliminary recommendations for bridge design from an ergonomic point of

view are given, directed in the first instance to big tankers,

containerships and modern general-purpose cargo ships.

CONTENTS

page

Summary

,.

5

I

Introduction

r vr 5;1 ,

II The questionnaire

.

...

. .

III

Summary of the results

.

.

,

5

6

I

Introduction

In order to design an optimal ship bridge from an

ergonomic point of view it was considered necessary

to have an idea of the prevailing opinions concerning

bridge layout and equipment of the functionaries on

board, namely captains, navigating officers and pilots.

In reaching a certain number which may be

con-sidered as a reasonably representative sample,

inter-views take up a good deal of time. Therefore a

ques-tionnaire was preferred.

Some of the advantages of a questionnaire are:

The possibility to reach a fairly large number of

respondents easily (by mail).

Answers from respondents are obtained in the same

way (by putting the same questions in the same

order).

The data obtained can be easily processed by means

of a computer.

Saving of time.

Compared with a face to face interview a questionnaire

has the disadvantage that it is not possible to let the

respondents specify what they mean exactly by giving

certain answers. Also one does not always know

whether a certain question is interpreted correctly.

However, for the purpose at hand a questionnaire was

considered adequate. In a later phase it will be possible

to check at least some of the results by interviewing

functionaries about the layout of a mock-up.

The questionnaire consists of 138 questions which

are put in the form of statements. About 80% of the

statements were gathered during some short voyages

with various ships.

During these voyages a small

number of navigating officers, captains and pilots

have been interviewed. The results of these interviews

form the basic material from which the statements are

BRIDGE DESIGN ON DUTCH MERCHANT VESSELS:

AN ERGONOMIC STUDY

PART II: FIRST RESULTS OF A QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETED BY

CAPTAINS, NAVIGATING OFFICERS AND PILOTS

by

J. MORAAL, H. SCHUFFEL and A. LAZET

Summary

In this report results are given of an opinion survey by means of a questionnaire. Captains, navigating officers and pilots completed

the questionnaire which consisted of statements related to the design and layout of bridges of merchant vessels, the equipment

and questions of task load and training. The results may serve in forming a line of thought in the design of an optimal bridge from an ergonomic point of view.

chosen. The remainder of the statements (20%) were

derived from the ergonomic literature.

People could give their responses by underlining one

of three possibilities: agree, no opinion, disagree. The

order of the statements was chosen at random. They

belonged to one of the following topics:

some general statements

perception of the environment

position of equipment: bridge layout

functioning of instruments

reading/operating instruments and equipment

comfort

lighting of bridge and instruments

team-work

training

task load

task uncertainty

The results of the opinion survey are to be considered

mainly as a starting point for discussion purposes and

to see whether certain opinions can serve in helping

to design an optimal bridge layout. This has to be

underlined strongly to withstand the possible

mis-understanding that the questionnaire is

decisive in

what to design and how. It merely has the function to

help in forming a good line of thought in bridge design.

The total number of respondents of which the results

are mentioned amounts to a hundred and fifteen,

sixty-seven of whom are captains and navigating

offi-cers and forty-eight pilots. The average age of the first

group is 37,5 and of the second group 45,9 (years).

Average experience amounts to 15,7 and 26,3 years

respectively. The first group consisted of 20 captains,

19 first, 15 second and 13 third officers.

The group of pilots consisted of three categories

corresponding with three areas where they are stationed

(cat. A, B and C: 10, 21 and 17 respondents

6

lively). Captains and navigating officers are sampled

mainly from three well-known ship companies in the

Netherlands: Nedlloyd, Shell Tankers and the Royal

Dutch Steamship Company. The authors are very

grate-ful for the cooperation which was shown by these

companies in addressing the respondents and mailing

the questionnaires.

In chapter II the complete number of statements

with responses in percentages is reproduced, grouped

under the various topics. In chapter III this is followed

by a summary of the results. This summary is given

only to obtain a rough idea quickly.

General statements

II

The questionnaire

I.

Following every statement the responses for agree.

no opinion, disagree are given

in percentages.

Column

gives the percentages for the group

of captains and navigating officers, column "P'"

holds for the group of pilots.

The statements are grouped under the several

topics as mentioned in the foregoing chapter. In

the original questionnaire the statements were put

in a purely random order and in Dutch.

In the instruction it was underlined that the

respon-ses to the statements should be related to the

situa-tion in general rather than based on certain details.

Also it was underlined that after reading the

state-ments the responses should be given immediately.

agree

no opinion disagree

C

p

c p c p

1

The dimensions of many knobs and dials should be smaller

25 19 9 19 66 62 2

Promoting safety on board ship is achieved exclusively by

techno-logical improvements of the equipment

16 6 0 6 84 88

3

I always inform myself about the sentences of the Court of Navigation

93 85 5 6 2 8 4

The problems of ship loading and discharging influence safety to a

far greater extent than navigating

41 10 2 10 57 79

5

"Near-missers" (near-collisions) may throw an important light upon

misfunctioning of instruments and equipment

66 77 4 4 30 19

6

The opinion that there are great differences between pilots and

navigating officers is an exaggeration

66 60 7 2 27 38

7

Navigating officers and pilots differ very much in their opinions about

the characteristics of an optimal bridge design and layout

30 17 27 12 43 71

8 Women will do equally well in officiating as navigating officers

32 58 11 10 57 31

9

There should be different groups of pilots for piloting big and small

ships

52 23 18 2 30 75

10

Instead of port- and riverpilots there should be different groups of

pilots for big and small ships

43 21 18 2 39 77

Perception of the environment

11

Perception of navigation lights of passing ships is very difficult at

night

20 21 2 4 79 75

12

Rotating windows have to be replaced by window wipers

57 67 5 4 38 29

13

Standing at the radar stand the view of the environment of the ship

must be as unobstructed as is maximally possible

70 85 4 2 27 12

14

Window washers are necessary to clean the front windows

89 85 4 8 7 6

15

From the ship's bridge a view range of 215

is certainly sufficient

7 4 0 2 93 94 16

Ship's bridges have to be built in such a way that the range of view

100 100

0 0 0 0

approaches 3600 as much as possible

17

The helmsman's range of view of the environment must be as wide as

75 81 0 0 25 19

possible

18

During the winter the view from the bridge is obscured too much

70 88 9 2 21 10

by frosted or blurred windows

19

In navigation everything depends on good perceptual conditions

79 79 5 0 16 21 20

Reading the magnetic compass by mirror-reflection obscures the view

27 48 5 4 68 48

21

Generally speaking the visibility at night of the navigation lights of

77 65 0 2 23 33

passing ships is good

22

Standing at the chart table the view of the environment of the ship

98 88 2 2 0 10

must be as unobstructed as is maximally possible

23

During navigation it must be possible for the pilot to stand at the

79 88 4 0 18 12

windows as closely as possible

24

The position of the helmsman ought to be at the front of the wheel-

62 56 2 6 36 38

house

25

"Near-missers (near-collisions) supply important information about

73 88 9 0 18 12

shortcomings in the perceptual conditions

26

It must be continually possible to compare radar display, chart and

95 94 0 2 5 4

outside situation in rapid succession

Position of equipment; bridge layout

agree

no opinion disagree

c p c p c p

27

An extra radar stand at the front of the wheelhouse is always re-

96 98 2 0 2 2

commendable

28 VHF terminals should be placed on the wings of the bridge

64 90 5 4 30 6 29

Rudderangle indicator and tachometers should be easily observable

96 90 2 2 ? 2

from the wings of the bridge

30

Peloruses mounted only on the wings of the bridge are sufficient

57 50 4 4 39 46 31

It is no luxury to have two chart tables in the wheelhouse

71 56 2 17 27 27 32

The use of certain instruments often depends on the place where

79 96 0 2 21 2

they are mounted

33

It is not necessary for a pelorus to be mounted in the middle of the

54 71 16 12 30 17

wheelhouse

34

The chart table must be mounted in a completely separate room

9 8 2 2 89 90 35

Operating consoles (steering, propelling, communication) should be

91 67 0 2 9 31

placed at the front of the bridge

36 A VHF telephone must be in the immediate vicinity of the radar

95 100

0 0 5 0

stand

37

The window frames on the bridge should often be narrower

84 90 4 6 12 4 7

8

agree

no opinion disagree

C p c p c p

38

The radar equipment should preferably be mounted in a separate

room

38 12 0 0 62 88

39

The facility to darken the radar stand using black curtains is efficacious

68 75 2 0 30 25

40

The equipment in the wheelhouse is generally distributed over too

many places

82 96 2 0 16 4

41

In most cases free passage from starboard to port is warranted

91 65 0 2 9 33

42

Much should be improved in the layout of ship's bridges and

posi-tioning of equipment

77 88 7 2 16 10

Functioning of instruments

43 A "rate-of-turn indicator- is an important navigational aid

45 54 46 42 9 4

44

The intelligibility of the VHF is sometimes obstructed by droning of

the engine or vibrations

39 77 5 0 55 23

45

The intelligibility of the VHF needs much improvement (especially

with regard to non-routine information)

48 88 7 4 45 8

46

More than one acoustic alarm on the bridge is confusing

50 67 4 23 46 10

47 A telegraph working by means of push buttons is preferable to the

classic design of the telegraph (with handles)

30 12 29 21 41 67

48

The walkie-talkie is a good and reliable means of communication

80 81 4 2 16 17

49

The VHF is not intelligible everywhere on the bridge

62 96 4 2 34 2

50

The radar equipment often shows defects

48 58 2 -) 50 40

51

Rudderangle indicators often show defects

7 42 4 17 89 42

52 An off-course alarm meets its requirements very well

88 15 9 75 4 10

53

The use of a radar hood is annoying

75 60 0 0 25 40

54

The course registration apparatus meets its requirements very well

61 56 34 33 5 10

55

For signalizing alarms one acoustic signal together with one panel

with visual signals is to be preferred

88 77 2 19 11 4

56

It is very inconvenient when the chart table also has to be used for

completing lists, writing up journals, bringing charts up-to-date etc.

75 60 2 17 23 23

57

It is very important that one or more windows at the front of the

bridge can be opened

71 90 0 0 29 10

58

Standing on the wings of the bridge it must be possible to operate

the air whistle

100 100

0 0 0 0

59

It must be made possible to operate the equipment in a sitting

position

75 65 2 2 23 33

60

When the ship has a propeller at the bow it must in any case be

operatable from the wheelhouse

93 92 5 2 2 6

agree

no opinion disagree

9 C

p

C p c p 77 67 4 4 20 29

82 100

5 0 12 0 61 94 4 0 36 6 54 46 0 6 46 48 80 71 2 4 18 25 98 65 0 23 2 12 75 73 14 25 11 2 89 98 4 0 7 2 18 4 4 2 79 94 20 15 7 2 73 83 46 43 0 2 54 41 66 77 9 10 25 12 43 42 2 19 55 40 48 79 23 0 29 21 66 60 4 0 30 40 86 92 2 2 12 6 39 71 2 0 59 29 91 94 0 0 9 6 89 81 0 2 11 17 7 10 0 0 93 90 32 25 0 6 68 69 54 67 0 2 46 31 48 56 30 21 21 23 36 58 38 2 27 40

61

It is very important to be able to operate the anchor from the

wheel-house

62 A propeller at the bow should be operatable from the wings of the

bridge

63

For a good intelligibility of the VHF it is necessary that loudspeakers

should be mounted at several places on the bridge

64

In order to prevent confusion there should be only one telephone on

the bridge

65

To make a good estimation of the speed of the ship the use of a

tacho-meter only is insufficient (with regard to over-or underestimation)

66

There should be a telegraph recorder on the bridge

67 A digital depth indicator is a very important navigational aid and

therefore should always be mounted on a ship's bridge

68

It must be possible to cope with irritating light or glare (low sun)

using movable coloured screens

69

The use of a radar hood is superfluous

Reading/operating instruments and equipment

70

The interpretation of radar pictures is very easy

71

It is an outworn dogma that the helmsman is recruited form the

lowest ranks of the crew

72

In reading instruments people might make errors which can lead to

dangerous situations

73

In bad weather-conditions reading and operating instruments

becomes very difficult

74

In navigation, pilots are served best by relative motion radar with

head-up display

75

Standing close to the front windows is very inconvenient when one

has to look up in reading certain instruments

76

During mooring, docking etc. wireless communication equipment

has to be used

77

Instead of a steering wheel push buttons might do equally well (or

better) in operating the rudder

78

It must always be possible to compare chart and radar image in

rapid succession

79

During prolonged navigation in fog the radar has to be monitored

from a sitting position

80

It is possible to do without a helmsman; actual steering can be done

by one of the navigating officers

81

It should be possible that the helmsman also operates the telegraph

82

During "blind navigation" (fog) the ship has to be operated directly

from the radar stand

83

In avoiding collisions the use of true motion radar is safest

84

In navigation pilots are served best with true motion radar with

head-up display

10

85

With a very limited view (fog) navigation is possible only by means

of radar equipment

86

There is an urgent need of equipment with which during navigation

the situation after some time (several minutes) will be predicted

87

Generally speaking the equipment on the bridge has to be much

simplified, especially from an operator's point of view

88

In designing equipment for ships, one has to take into account to a

greater extent that in bad weather conditions the operation will be

greatly hampered

89 To avoid collisions the use of two radar displays, one with true

motion and one with relative motion and both adjusted to the same

range, will do best

Lighting of bridge and instruments

agree

no opinion disagree

c p c

p

c p

90

Red light meets the requirements best for lighting instruments and

meters having white letters on a black background

59 56 27 31 14 12

91

Red light meets the requirements very well in lighting the chart table

27 23 11 25 62 52

92

Orange light meets the requirements very well in lighting the chart

table

45 75 9 21 46

4

93

Generally speaking the lighting of ship's bridges is still deplorable

64 69 2 2 34 29

94

Coloured light does not meet the requirements for lighting the chart

table

46 10 5 25 48 65

95

It is wrong when at night one has to use a pocket lantern or lighter

to read or operate instruments

96 98 0 0 4 2

96

It often happens that one has to use a pocket lantern or lighter on

the bridge to illuminate something

86 96 0 2 14 2

Comfort

97

There ought to be a toilet in the near vicinity of the bridge

100 100

0 0 0 0

98

The temperature control on the bridge has to be improved especially

with regard to tropical areas

66 71 4 27 30 2

99

There should not be a chair on the bridge

14 4 0 0 86 96

100

Closer attention should be paid to the comfort of the crew on the

bridge

71 73 9 2 20 25

101

There should be a coffee machine on the bridge

98 94 0 4 2 ')

102

One often suffers from cold on the bridge

64 60 5 2 30 38

103

The airconditioning on the bridge needs improvement

66 67 5 21 29 12

104

One is often hindered by vibrations on the bridge

70 67 5 2 25 31

68 81 2 0 30 19

48 60 14 25 38 15

54 69 9 8 38 23

52 48 5 31 43 21

the bridge may cause confusion (St. 64). A digital depth

indicator is an important navigational aid (st. 67).

Reading/operating instruments

and equipment

A 50% split of opinion exists whether the helmsman

ought to be recruited from the lowest ranks of the crew

(st. 71). It must be possible to compare chart and

radar display (st. 78) in rapid succession. One cannot

do without a helmsman (st. 80), but one does not like

him to operate the telegraph as well (st. 81). Navigating

at full sea works best with the help of a true motion

and a relative motion radar display (st. 89). In this

respect it is remarkable that about 25% of the

respon-dents leave the question unanswered.

Lighting of bridge and instruments

That the lighting on the bridge is still in a deplorable

situation is confirmed by about 67% of the respondents

(st. 93).

Comfort

The temperature on the bridge needs better control

(St. 98). Generally speaking the question of comfort

asks for closer attention (St. 100). Vibrations form a

source of hindrance (St. 104).

Team-work

The numbers of crew members is sufficient generally

(St. 108).

Training

The use of simulators is regarded as very important

(St. 112, 116).

Task load

The task load is not regarded as very heavy, although

when in heavy traffic, attention has to be paid to too

many things at the same time (St. 122).

Task uncertainty

It is not necessary to think a long time in advance to

operate the equipment (st. 128). There is a high

prob-ability that signals are not detected (st. 129) and there

is not always enough time to correct errors (st. 136).

2

Differences between navigating officers and pilots

General statements

Pilots strongly disagree with the statement that there

is a need for different groups of pilots for big and small

ships (St. 9, 10).

Perception of the environment

Even more than navigating officers pilots stress the

importance of a large range of view (st.

13, 18, 20).

Position of equipment; layout of bridge

Both groups, but captains and navigating officers in

particular, prefer operating consoles at the front of

the bridge (st. 35). Pilots in particular agree with the

statement that generally the equipment on the bridge

is distributed over too many places (St. 40).

A much greater percentage of pilots (33% vs 9%)

disagree with the statement that free passage from

starboard to port is generally warranted (st. 41).

Functioning of instruments

Among navigating officers there is approximately a

50% split of opinion that the VHF functions

insuffi-ciently or is poorly intelligible. Pilots however, strongly

agree (st. 44, 45, 49, 63). Pilots also strongly resist a

push button telegraph (st. 47). Pilots are unanimous

in agreement with the statement that in case of a bow

propeller it should be possible to operate it from the

wheelhouse (st. 62). Navigating officers more strongly

stress the importance of a telegraph recorder (st. 66).

Reading/operating instruments

and equipment

Pilots do not have a clear picture whether TM or RM

radar serves best as an navigational aid (St. 84, 74).

This may be an artifact be.cause the statements leave

the question of criteria open. Pilots more strongly

stress the necessity to navigate directly from the radar

stand in case of fog (St. 82). Navigating officers less

strongly stress the need for predictor displays (st. 86)

and argue less in favour of a simplification of the

equip-ment (st. 87).

Team-work

In performing their tasks pilots feel more dependent

on others (St. 106). In learning how now to operate

the equipment they more strongly stress the need for

prolonged training (st. 113).

Task load

Pilots experience a heavier task load, especially during

the nights (St. 121, 124, 127). This may throw light on

the special task demands encountered when sailing in

heavy traffic or on dangerous routes!

Task uncertainty

Pilots experience more uncertainty in performing their

task (st. 131, 134, 135, 138). This may be caused by the

fact that due to frequently interchanging ships they

encounter new and unfamiliar situations to a greater

extent.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE NETHERLANDS SHIP RESEARCH CENTRE TNO

LIST OF EARLIER PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST

PRICE PER COPY DFL. 10.- (POSTAGE NOT INCLUDED)

M = engineering department S = shipbuilding department C = corrosion and antifouling dePartment

Reports

90 S Computation of pitch and heave motions for arbitrary ship forms. W. E. Smith, 1967.

M Corrosion in exhaust driven turbochargers on marine diesel

engines using heavy fuels. R. W. Stuart Mitchell,, A. J. M. S. van Montfoort and V. A. Ogale, 1967.

92 M Residual fuel treatment on board ship. Part II. Comparative

cylinder wear measurements on a laboratory diesel engine using filtered or centrifuged residual fuel. A de Mooy, M. Verwoest and G. G. van der Meulen, 1967.

93 C Cost relations of the treatments of ship hulls and the fuel con-. sumption of ships. H. J. Lageveen-van Kuijk, 1967.

94 C Optimum conditions for blast cleaning of steel plate. J.

Rem-melts, 1967.

95 M Residual fuel treatment on board ship. Part I. The effect of cen-trifuging, filtering and homogenizing on the unsolubles in residual fuel. M. Verwoest and F. J. Colon, 1967.

96 S Analysis of the modified strip theory for the calculation of ship motions and wave bending moments. J. Gerritsma and W. Beu-kelman, 1967.

9-7S On the efficacy of two different roll-damping tanks.. J. 13ootsma and J. J. van den Bosch, 1967.

98 S Equation of motion coefficients for 'a pitching and heaving des-troyer model. W. E. Smith, 1967.

99 S The manoeuvrability of ships on a straight course. J. P. Hooft, 1967.

100S Amidships forces and moments on a CB-0.80 "Series 60"

model in waves from various directions. R. Wahab, 1967.. 101 C Optimum conditions for blast cleaning of steel plate. Conclusion..

J. Remmelts, 1967.

102 M The axial stiffness of marine diesel engine crankshafts. Part I. Comparison between the results of full scale measurements and

those of calculations according to published formulae. N. J.

Visser, 1967.

103 M The axial stiffness of marine diesel engine crankshafts. Part II.. Theory and results of scale model measurements and comparison

with published formulae. C. A. M. van der Linden, 1967. 104 M Marine diesel engine exhaust noise. Part I. A mathematical model.

J. H. Janssen, 1967.

105 M Marine diesel engine exhaust noise. Part II. Scale models of

exhaust systems. J. Buiten and J. H. Janssen, 1968.

106 M Marine diesel engine exhaust noise. Part III. Exhaust sound

criteria for bridge wings. J. H. Janssen en J. Buiten, 1967.

,107 S Ship vibration analysis by finite element technique. Part I.

General review and application to simple structures, statically loaded. S. Hylarides, 1967.

108 M Marine refrigeration engineering. part I. Testing of a

decentral-ised refrigerating installation.. J. A. Knobbout and R. W. J.

Kouffeld, 1967.

109 S A comparative study on four different passive roll damping tanks. Part I. J. H. Vugts, 1968.

110 S Strain, stress and flexure of two corrugated and one plane

bulk-head subjected to a lateral, distributed load.. H. E. Jaeger and

P. A. van Katwijk, 1968.

111 M Experimental evaluation of heat transfer in a dry-cargo ships'

tank, using thermal oil as a heat transfer medium. D. J. van der. Heeden, 1968.

112 S The hydrodynamic coefficients for swaying, heaving. and rolling cylinders in a free surface. J. H. Vugts, 1968.

113 M Marine refrigeration engineering. Part II. Some results of testing; a decentralised marine refrigerating unit with R 501 J. A. Knob-. bout and C. B. Colenbrander, 1968.

114 S The steering of a ship during the stopping, manoeuvre. J. P.

Hooft, 1969.

115 S Cylinder motions in beam waves. J. H. Vugts, 1968.

116 M Torsional-axial vibrations of a ship's propulsion system.. Part I.. Comparative investigation of calculated and measured

torsional-axial vibrations in the shafting of a dry cargo motorship.

C. A. M. van der Linden, H. H. 't Hart and E. R. Dolfin, 1968..

117 S A comparative study on four different passive roll damping

tanks. Part II. J. H. Vugts, 1969.

118. M Stern gear arrangement and electric power generation in ships propelled by controllable pitch propellers. C. Kapsenberg, 1968,

119 M Marine diesel engine exhaust noise. Part IV. Transferdamping

data of 40 modelvariants of a compound resonator silencer.

J. Buiten, M. J. A. M. de Regt and W. P. Hanen, 1968. 120C Durability tests with prefabrication primers in use steel Of plates.

A. M. van Londen and W. Mulder, 1970.

121 S Proposal for the testing of weld metal from the viewpoint of

brittle fracture initiation. W. P. van den Blink and J. J. W. Nib-bering, 1968.

122 M The corrosion behaviour of cunifer 10 alloys in seawaterpiping-systems on board ship. Part I. W. J. J. Goetzee and F. J. Kievits,

1968.

123 M Marine refrigeration engineering. Part III. Proposal for a

specifi-cation of a marine refrigerating unit and test procedures. J. A.

Knobbout and R. W. J. Kouffeld, 1968.

124 S The design of U-tanks for roll damping of ships. J. D. van den

Bunt, 1969.

125 S A proposal on noise criteria for sea-going ships. J. Buiten, 1969. 126 S A proposal for standardized measurements and annoyance rating of simultaneous noise and vibration in ships. J. H. Janssen, 1969. 127 S The braking of large vessels II. H. E. Jaeger in collaboration with

M. Jourdain, 1969.

128 M Guide for the calculation of heating capacity and heating coils for double bottom fuel oil tanks in dry cargo ships. D. J. van der

Reeden, 1969..

129 M Residual fuel treatment on board ship. Part III. A. de Mooy,

P. J. Brandenburg and G. G. van der Meulen, 1969.

130 M Marine diesel engine exhaust noise. Part V. Investigation of al double resonatorsilencer. J. Buiten, 1969.

131 S Model and full scale motions of a twin-hull vessel.. M. F,. van Sluijs, 1969.

132 M Torsional-axial vibrations of a ship's propulsion system. Part, II. W. van Gent and S. Hylarides, 1969.

133 S A model study on the noise reduction effect of damping layers, aboard ships. F. H. van Tol, 1970.

134 M The corrosion behaviour of cunifer-10 alloys in seawaterpiping-systems on board ship. Part II. P. J.. Berg and R. G. de Lange,

1969.

135 S Boundary layer control on a shipPs rudder.. J. H. G. Verhagen,

19

116 S Observations on waves and ship's behaviour made on board

of Dutch ships. M. F. van Sluijs and J. J. Stijnman, 1971. 137 M Torsional-axial vibrations of a ship's propulsion system. Part III.

C. A. M. van der Linden, 1969.

138 S The manoeuvrability of ships at low speed. J. P. Hooft and

M. W. C. Oosterveld, 1970.

139 S Prevention of noise and vibration annoyance aboard a sea-going

passenger and carferry equipped with diesel engines. Part I. Line of thoughts and predictions. J. Buiten, J. H. Janssen,

H. F. Steenhoek and L. A. S. Hageman, 1971.

140 S Prevention of noise and vibration annoyance aboard a seagoing

passenger and carferry equipped with diesel engines. Part II. Measures applied and comparison of computed values with

measurements. J. Buiten, 1971.

141 S Resistance and propulsion of a high-speed single-screw cargo

liner design. J. J. Muntjewerf, 1970.

142 S Optimal meteorological ship routeing. C. de Wit, 1970.

143 S Hull. vibrations of the cargo-liner "Koudekerk". H. H. 't Hart,

19

144 S Critical consideration of present hull vibration analysis. S. Hyla., rides, 1970.

145 S Computation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of oscillating

cylinders. B. de Jong, 1973.

146 M Marine refrigeration engineering. Part IV. A Comparative study on single and two stage compression. A. H. van der Tak, 1970. 147 M Fire detection in machinery spaces. P. J. Brandenburg, 1971. 148 S A reduced method for the calculation of the shear stiffness of a

ship hull. W. van Horssen, 1971.

.149 M Maritime transportation of containerized cargo. Part II. ExperiL mental investigation concerning the carriage of green coffee froth. Colombia to Europe in sealed containers. J. A. Knobbout, 1971. .150 S The hydrodynamic forces and ship, motions in oblique waves.

J. H. Vugts, 1971.

91

151 M Maritime transportation of containerized cargo. Part I. Theoretical and experimental evaluation of the condensation risk

when transporting containers loaded with tins in cardboard

boxes. J. A. Knobbout, 1971.

152 S Acoustical investigations of asphaltic floating floors applied on a steel deck. J. Buiten, 1971.

153 S Ship vibration analysis by finite element technique. Part II. Vibra-tion analysis. S. Hylarides, 1971.

155 M Marine diesel engine exhaust noise. Part VI. Model experiments on the influence of the shape of funnel and superstructure on the radiated exhaust sound. J. Buiten and M. J. A. M. de Regt, 1971. 156 S The behaviour of a five-column floating drilling unit in waves.

J. P. Hooft, 1971.

157 S Computer programs for the design and analysis of general cargo ships. J. Holtrop, 1971.

158 S Prediction of ship manoeuvrability. G. van Leeuwen and

J. M. J. Journee, 1972.

159 S DASH computer program for Dynamic Analysis of Ship Hulls. S. Hylarides, 1971.

160 M Marine refrigeration engineering. Part VII. Predicting the con-trol properties of water valves in marine refrigerating installations A. H. van der Tak, 1971.

161 S Full-scale measurements of stresses in the bulkcarrier m.v.

'Ossendrecht'. 1st Progress Report: General introduction and

information. Verification of the gaussian law for stress-response to waves. F. X. P. Soejadi, 1971.

162 S Motions and mooring forces of twin-hulled ship configurations. M. F. van Sluijs, 1971.

163 S Performance and propeller load fluctuations of a ship in waves. M. F. van Sluijs, 1972.

164S The efficiency of rope sheaves. F. L. Noordegraaf and C. Spaans, 1972.

165 S Stress-analysis of a plane bulkhead subjected to a lateral load. P. Meijers, 1972.

166 M Contrarotating propeller propulsion, Part I, Stern gear, line

shaft system and engine room arrangement for driving contra-rotating propellers. A. de Vos, 1972.

167 M Contrarotating propeller propulsion. Part

II. Theory of the

dynamic behaviour of a line shaft system for driving

contra-rotating propellers. A. W. van Beek, 1972.

169 S Analysis of the resistance increase in waves of a fast cargo ship. J. Gerritsma and W. Beukelman, 1972.

170 S Simulation of the steering- and manoeuvring characteristics of a second generation container ship. G. M. A. Brummer, C. B. van de Voorde, W. R. van Wijk and C. C. Glansdorp, 1972.

172 M Reliability analysis of piston rings of slow speed two-stroke

marine diesel engines from field data. P. J. Brandenburg, 1972. 173 5 Wave load measurements on a model of a large container ship.

Tan Seng Gie, 1972.

174 M Guide for the calculation of heating capacity and heating coils for deep tanks. D. J. van der Heeden and A. D. Koppenol, 1972. 176S Bow flare induced springing. F. F. van Gunsteren, 1973.

177 M Maritime transportation of containerized cargo. Part III. Fire

tests in closed containers. H. J. Souer, 1973. 178 S Fracture mechanics and fracture control for ships.

J. J. W. Nibbering, 1973.

179S Effect of forward draught variation on performance of full ships. M. F. van Sluijs and C. Flokstra, 1973.

Communications

15 M Refrigerated containerized transport (Dutch). J. A. Knobbout, 1967.

16 S Measures to prevent sound and vibration annoyance aboard a seagoing passenger and carferry, fitted out with dieselengines

(Dutch). J. Buiten, J. H. Janssen, H. F. Steenhoek and L. A. S. Hageman, 1968.

17 S Guide for the specification, testing and inspection of glass reinforced polyester structures in shipbuilding (Dutch). G.

Hamm, 1968.

18 S An experimental simulator for the manoeuvring of surface ships. J. B. van den Brug and W. A. Wagenaar, 1969.

19 S The computer programmes system and the NALS language for numerical control for shipbuilding. H. le Grand, 1969.

20 S A case study on networkplanning in shipbuilding (Dutch). J. S. Folkers, H. J. de Ruiter, A. W. Ruys, 1970.

21 S The effect of a contracted time-scale on the learning ability for manoeuvring of large ships (Dutch). C. L. Truijens, W. A. Wage-naar, W. R. van Wijk, 1970.

22 M An improved stern gear arrangement. C. Kapsenberg, 1970. 23 M Marine refrigeration engineering. Part V (Dutch). A. H. van der

Tak, 1970.

24 M Marine refrigeration engineering. Part VI (Dutch). P. J. G. Goris and A. H. van der Tak, 1970.

25 5 A second case study on the application of networks for pro-ductionplanning in shipbuilding (Dutch). H. J. de Ruiter, H.

Aartsen, W. G. Stapper and W. F. V. Vrisou van Eck, 1971.

26 S On optimum propellers with a duct of finite length. Part II.

C. A. Slijper and J. A. Sparenberg, 1971.

27 S Finite element and experimental stress analysis of models of shipdecks, provided with large openings (Dutch). A. W. van

Beek and J. Stapel, 1972.

28 S Auxiliary equipment as a compensation for the effect of course instability on the performance of helmsmen. W. A. Wagenaar, P. J. Paymans, G. M.A. Brummer. W. R. van Wijk and C. C. Glansdorp, 1972.

29 S The equilibrium drift and rudder angles of a hopper dredger

with a single suction pipe. C. B. van de Voorde, 1972. 30 S A third case study on the application of networks for

production-planning in shipbuilding (Dutch). H. J. de Ruiter and C. F. Heij-nen, 1973.

31 S Some experiments on one-side welding with various backing

materials. Part 1. Manual metal arc welding with coated

electro-des and semi-automatic gas shielded arc welding (Dutch).

J. M. Vink, 1973.

32 S The application of computers aboard ships. Review of the state of the art and possible future developments (Dutch). G. J. Hoge-wind and R. Wahab, 1973.

33 S FRODO, a computerprogram for resource allocation in network-planning (Dutch). H. E. I. Bodewes, 1973.

34 S Bridge design on dutch merchant vessels; an ergonomic study.

Part 1: A summary of ergonomic points of view (Dutch).

A. Lazet, H. Schuffel, J. Moraal, H. J. Leebeek and H. van Dam,

1973.

35 S Bridge design on dutch merchant vessels; an ergonomic study. Part II: First results of a questionnaire completed by captains, navigating officers and pilots. J. Moraal, H. Schuffel and A. Lazet, 1973.

36 S Bridge design on dutch merchant vessels; an ergonomic study.

Part III: Observations and preliminary recommendations. A.

Lazet, H. Schuffel, J. Moraal, H. J. Leebeek and H. van Dam, 1973.

NEDERLANDS SCHEEPSSTUDIECENTRUM TNO

NETHERLANDS SHIP RESEARCH CENTRE TNO

SHIPBUILDING DEPARTMENT

LEEGHWATERSTRAAT 5, DELFT

BRIDGE DESIGN ON DUTCH MERCHANT VESSELS;

AN ERGONOMIC STUDY

PART IV: EVALUATION OF STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BY MEANS OF A STATIC MOCK-UP

(ERGONOMISCHE STUDIE BETREFFENDE DE BRUG

VAN NEDERLANDSE KOOPVAARDIJSCHEPEN)

(DEEL IV: TOETSING VAN NORMEN EN AANBEVELINGEN

MET BEHULP VAN EEN STATISCHE MOCK-UP)

by

J. MORAAL, H. SCHUFFEL, H. J. LEEBEEK and A. LAZET

(Institute of Perception TNO)

Issued by the Council

COMMUNICATIONS No. 40 S

August 1975

S N/294

VOORWOORD

Dit rapport is het vierde en laatste interim rapport van een studie

gericht op de ergonomische aspekten van het ontwerp van de

scheepsbrug onder auspicien van het Nederlands Scheepsstudie-centrum TNO.

Bij deze studie is het oordeel van de funktionarissen die

be-trokken zijn bij het "brug-gebeuren" van groot belang. In een vroeg stadium (zie deel II van dit onderzoek) zijn dan ook

middels questionnaires en diskussies de meningen van gezag-voerders, stuurlieden en loodsen gepeild.

Nu, in een veel later stadium, is dit nog eens gedaan, mede aah de hand van de mock-up van de brug, waarin de bevindingen uit het onderzoek waren verwerkt.

Opnieuw zijn gezagvoerders, stuurlieden en loodsen

uitge-nodigd om aan de hand van vragenlijsten de gebouwde, groten-deels statische mock-up te evalueren. Ditmaal is ook een groep

ontwerpers eq. adviseurs uit het buitenland uitgenodigd om met behulp van dezelfde vragenlijsten als voornoemde hun

mening kenbaar te maken.

De resultaten van deze experimenten zijn samengevat in dit rapport en zullen een leidraad vormen bij de verdere verwezen-hiking van de dynamische mock-up, het sluitstuk van deze studie.

De bouw van de dynamische mock-up is inmiddels

aange-vangen en zal in de loop van 1975 zijn voltooid. Met dit

gereed-schap zal het mogelijk zijn om onder alle mogelijke externe

omstandigheden de relatie mens-machine door te lichten,

waar-mede een bijdrage geleverd kan worden aan de ontwikkeling

van de optimale, wellicht gestandaardiseerde, scheepsbrug.

HET NEDERLANDS SCHEEPSSTUDIECENTRUM TNO

PREFACE

This report is the last part of a series of interim reports directed to ergonomics in bridge design, sponsored by the Netherlands Ship Research Centre TNO.

The opinion of the functionaries, involved in bridge operations is of great importance. In an early stage of this study (see part II

of the series of reports) the opinion of captains, navigating

officers and pilots was asked by means of questionnaires and in discussions.

The results of earlier studies were incorporated in the

mock-up of a bridge. Using this mock-mock-up the experiments were

repeated.

Once again groups of navigating officers and pilots were

invited to give their opinion and to evaluate the mock-up of the bridge, using questionnaires. This time a group of designers and advisors from aboard was involved in the experiments.

The results of these experiments are presented in this report and

will serve as a guide line for the realization of the dynamic

mock-up, being the coping-stone of the study. The building and fitting-out of the dynamic mock-up was started earlier this year and will be finished in 1975. This apparatus will be an essential aid in the study of the man-machine relation. The complete study will certainly contribute to the development of the optimal and possibly standard bridge design.

CONTENTS

page

I

Introduction

_ 3. 7'

3

2 Subjects,,.,

g 3:3 ER .04 k

7

General remarlmon the Analysis of

. 8

4

Navigation Bridges; Basic Design' Requirements .filmii the Subjects'

Point of View

... ..

,

, ., w- &

4.1

Subjects

.

.

.. :.

,

_ .., ,; :, 4 8

4.2

Procedure

. .,, u 4 7, 4, a 4. 0 , 8,

4.3

Results

. w ,6 a g.

.

,, 9

5 Basic Design- Rectifitements; Subjects Preferences for some Alternatives

fl

5.1

Subjects ..,

. .

5.2

Procedure ,;

g

,3

Results

,

.

-

. .

10

Comparative 'Evaluation onay-outs I to IV

10.1

Subject. .

10.2

Procedure -

. 10.3

Results

. 10,4

Discussion

. "4 4 4 trt a '4 .4 11 !

6,

Basic Information and Operation Requirements in Performing Duties

..

II

6.1

Subjects

, , 11

6.2

Procedure ,

,,, . qg 7

,

g , :

, ... ,

11

6.3

Results

. ,.,

.

,, . , 3. ,t. .. 4. 6 6 q _. 20

6,4

Discussion .

i -

g ,"7" ',: 'a, 4'. Ai * 44 4' i'll .- n , ,o, t.. '20

3 Ergonomic Design of a Ship's Bridge; the Mock-dp.(s"Cale 1:1)

. 20

7.1

Floorplan and Photographs (Lay-out I)

. . .. 20 7,2 -

Dimensions of Consoles .

,

. .

,

,

;, . 20

8`.

Evaluation of the Mock-up

...

... 2

,

8.1

Dimensions of Evaluation

,.'

,, , -

28, 8:1.1

Subjects

, _ Tai 4 ,-. 4 4, 28 8.1.2

Procedure.

i tr, -/ f.,' .1", in 7-.. ::. " 4 1... er - 3. 28 1 --,.

r

20 8.1.3

Results .

. . ... ,.

,

.. .: 28

8,1.4

Discussion

8.2

Evaluation by means of Checklist eP

4

'

a .4. ^ 4. 29

8.11

Subjects

. .. ,. ... . , 4

29

. .*, 29

,, -,.,, '-ii

8.2.2

Procedure..

*., , 'V 29

8.2.3i,

Results

44 A a, ,i. .4. k .- .t.. 29

8.2.4Discussion

r, ,=,e ii

,

,,,. x F: X

9

Alternative Forms of Lay-out of the Mock-up .

9,1

Floorplan and Photographs; Lay-out H

445 , 31

la 0 .4' r, eR'

9.2

Id., Lay-out III

k 31

9.3

Id., Lay-out IV

p!,. 4; 44 ,h1 s it Results 11 11 11 . . . . . 8 8.2.3 31 31 31 31 31 31 37 37

11

Individual Preferences for Bridge lay-out

37

11.1 Subjects 37

11.2

Procedure

37

11.3

Results

39

11.3.1

Captains and Navigating Officers

39

11.3.2

Pilots

39

11.3.3

Foreign subjects

39

11.4

Discussion

39

12

Lighting and Colours

39

12.1

Subjects

40 12.2

Procedure

40 12.3

Results

40 12.4

Discussion

40 13

General conclusions

45 13.1

The mock-up

42

13.2

The job analysis

42

13.3

Future research

43

References

43 Appendices 45 . .. . . . . . .. ...

... .

. . . . . .

BRIDGE DESIGN ON DUTCH MERCHANT VESSELS;

AN ERGONOMIC STUDY

PART IV: EVALUATION OF STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BY MEANS OF A STATIC MOCK-UP

by

J. MORAAL, H. SCHUFFEL, H. J. LEEBEEK and A. LAZET

Summary

This report is part IV of a study dealing with ergonomics in bridge design. Part III (see communication nr. 36 S) presented standards and recommendations for the design and lay-out of wheelhouses and bridges on tankers, containerships and modern general purpose cargo vessels.

In this report these recommendations are evaluated. For this evaluation a static mock-up (scale 1:1) was used which was judged by acting captains, navigating officers and pilots, and also by a group of subjects from several West-European countries.

Furthermore, the results are presented of a qualitative job analysis. These results should be incorporated in the ultimate design

specifications, especially with regard to the positioning of instruments.

Samen vatting

Dit rapport is deel IV van het onderzoek naar de ergonomische aspecten van het brugontwerp.

Deel III (zie communicatie nr. S 36) bevat standaards en aanbevelingen voor het ontwerp en de indeling van stuurhuizen en bruggen op tankers, containerschepen en moderne vrachtschepen.

In dit rapport worden de resultaten gegeven van een evaluatie van deze aanbevelingen. Voor deze evaluatie werd gebruik gemaakt van een statische mock-up (schaal 1:1), die beoordeeld werd door kapiteins, stuurlieden en loodsen en door een groep beoordelaars uit een aantal West-Europese landen.

Vervolgens worden de resultaten weergegeven van een qualitatieve taakanalyse. Deze resultaten dienen te worden verwerkt in de uiteindelijke ontwerp specificaties (het bestek), speciaal met betrekking tot de plaatsing van de instrumenten.

1

Introduction

This progress report is part IV in a series under the

general title:

Bridge Design on Dutch Merchant

Vessels; an Ergonomic Study. As such it is the logical

follow-up of part III in which standards and

recom-mendations were presented (Lazet et al., 1973b).

The conviction of the authors of this study is that in

developing an ergonomic design of a ship's bridge,

theory and practice should go hand in hand. Results

based on theoretical concepts always should be fed

back to the people working in the practical situations,

some of whom having to make the ultimate decisions

on realisation. In so doing, one may be safeguarded

from making recommendations which, for practical

reasons, appear to be inadequate or which are not at

all attuned to the user's needs.

In this report an inventory is made of current

opinions and views on various subject-matters. These

opinions and views are explored in several ways, which

sometimes show a certain amount of overlap. It will be

tried to reduce the data into a number of general

conclusions. These conclusions

will

ultimately be

incorporated in the recommendations for a

ship's

bridge, to be designed from an ergonomic point of

view, resulting in part V of the study.

Part II [Moraal et al.,

1973] gave the results of an

opinion questionnaire completed by acting captains,

navigating officers and pilots.

It was stated that a

questionnaire implies certain disadvantages for the

purpose at hand because it is not possible to have

respondents specify what they exactly mean by giving

certain answers. Therefore it was considered necessary

to evaluate in a later phase these opinions by

con-fronting the

the subjects with a mock-up of a recommended

ergonomically designed bridge.

Two groups of subjects took part in this

confronta-tion: one group in October 1973 and the other group

in June 1974. Besides an assessment of their opinions

on design and lay-out of a bridge mock-up, their

opinions were also asked with regard to several other

topics, for example, on the necessary information

acting functionaries need while navigating, on basic

principles in bridge design, lighting facilities and on

navigation apparatus. Finally, by comparing several

possibilities of bridge lay-out,

it

was investigated

whether differences exist between groups of acting

bridge functionaries with regard to their preferences.

2 Subjects

Subjects took part in evaluating the mock-up on two

8

occasions. The first of them from 8 to 12 October 1973,

the second on 6, 7, 12, 18 and 19 June 1974.

The groups were composed as follows:

Except for the group of foreign subjects and five

captains of the June 1974 group, all subjects were

acting functionaries of eight large shipping-companies

and, as for the pilots, from the three main piloted sea

areas, all

in the Netherlands. The five non-acting

captains served as managing functionaries of nautical

departments of shipping-companies. Average ages of

captains, first, second mates, and pilots were

approxi-mately 49, 44, 33 and 46 respectively. The group of

foreign subjects,

participating

in the research on

12 June 1974, was composed of nine representatives

from the United Kingdom, and two from Denmark,

Finland, Norway and Sweden each. Acting functions

of these representatives were as follows:

United Kingdomi

Project ergonomist, EMI Electronics Ltd., Middlesex.

Acting captain, British and Commonwealth, London.

Senior Lecturer in navigation, City of London,

Poly-technic.

Senior scientific officer, National Physical Laboratory,

Middlesex (former captain).

Assistant marine superintendent, Stephenson Clarke

Shipping Ltd., London.

Consultant work study practitioner, British Shipping

Federation, London (former 1st mate).

Chairman technical

committee,

United Kingdom

Pilot's Assoc. (senior first class pilot).

Executive committee member, United Kingdom Pilot's

Assoc. (senior first class pilot).

Assistant operations superintendent, Shell Tankers

Ltd., London (former captain).

Denmark

Marine superintendent, A. P. Moller, Copenhagen

(former captain).

Acting captain, A. P. Moller, Shipping Company,

Copenhagen.

Finn land

Marine superintendent, Bore Steamship Company,

Turku (former captain).

Acting captain, Bore Steamship Company, Turku.

Norway

Senior project leader, Ship Research Institute of

Norway (former captain).

Scientific officer, System for Management and

Opera-tion in Shipping (former capatin).

Sweden

Nautical inspector, Brostroms Tekniska AB,

Stock-holm (former captain).

Scientific officer, Technical Department Salen,

Stock-holm (former captain).

Average age of the group of foreign subjects was 39.

As can be seen this group is rather heterogeneous

compared with the other groups consisting almost

en-tirely of acting captains, navigation officers and pilots.

This is reflected in the results of their opinions, as will

be shown later in the report.

3

General remarks on the Analysis of Results

The October 1973 and the June 1974 groups received

partly overlapping programmes. This means that in

analysing the results some parts of the programmes

could be combined while other parts had to be analysed

separately. Therefore the results under each topic in

this report will be preceded by precise statements about

the number and groups of subjects which participated

in the related topic.

In the same way the actual

methods of analysis will be mentioned for each topic

apart.

4

Navigation Bridges; Basic Design Requirements

from the Subjects' Point of View

In Part III of the ongoing series of these reports

[Lazet et al., 1973b] basic ergonomic requirements in

navigation bridge design were given. However, it was

thought necessary to find out whether basic

require-ments could also be formulated from the point of view

of the acting functionaries themselves. These

require-ments could be used in fulfilment of a complement of

the general basic ergonomic requirements.

4.1 Subjects

In formulating basic requirements the 26 captains and

navigating officers and 21 pilots of the October 1973

group served as subjects.

4.2

Procedure

Subjects were asked to evaluate the bridge of the latest

ship on which they sailed.

In fact these were bridges of 46 ships; one bridge was

October 1973

June 1974

Captains (C)

10 15

First mates (N)

12 7

Second mates (N)

4

4

Pilots (P)

21 16

Foreign subjects (F)

17

Total

47 59

evaluated by two subjects. Average age of the ships

was nearly 10 years (range from less than 1 to 35 years).

The total of 46 ships was made up by 26 cargo ships,

11

oil tankers, 4 passenger ships, 2 containerships,

2 bulkcarriers and 1 tug. Average tonnage was 19.480

(dead weight) varying as follows:

up to

2.000 T DW: 6 ships

2.000 to 6.000 T DW: 5 ships

6.000 to 10.000 T DW: 14 ships

10.000 to 15.000 T DW: 6 ships

15.000 to 50.000 T DW: 12 ships

50.000 and over T DW: 3 ships

Average time of service on the latest ship for captains

and navigating officers was five months (range:

to

7 months) while the mean time elapsed since was about

two months (range: 2 days to 12 months). For the

pilots the average time of sailing on the latest ship was

of course very short. However, most pilots had piloted

the latest ship or ships with nearly the same bridges at

least dozens of times. The time elapsed since the pilots'

latest ship was in all cases one or a few days.

To have

these

bridges

evaluated, subjects

three

questions were asked:

Following your own personal opinion, what do you

think are the positive aspects of the bridge of your

last ship?

The same question with regard to negative aspects.

Following your own opinion, what do you think are

the main characteristics or points of ships' bridges in

general which need improvement?

Subjects could respond by writing down their answers

in their own words. They were encouraged to be as

complete as possible. No time limit was given. The

results are presented qualitatively.

4.3 Results

The answers of the subjects on all three questions

formed the data for a list of basic requirements. These

requirements are grouped under six topics. The order

of the requirements under each topic reflects the

num-ber of times they were mentioned. The six topics are:

Accommodation in general

View of the environment

Positioning of apparatus

Lighting conditions

Comfort

Remainder

1

Accommodation in general

Spacious accommodation; free passage from port to

starboard is always necessary; also behind chart

table and radarcabin.

No difference in floor level between wheelhouse and

bridge wing.

Bridge wings must be very easily accessible: no

doorsteps, light and easy moving sliding-doors.

Sufficient number of cupboards, book-cases etc.

Free passage along the front windows (mentioned

especially by pilots).

Sufficient number of possibilities to put all kinds of

objects in an easy way: binoculars, spectacles, coffee

cups, tableware etc.

Chart-table in wheelhouse; if not possible then

always an open connection between chart-room and

wheelhouse is necessary.

If possible, a wheelhouse expanding across the whole

width of the ship (no wings) is strongly preferred.

Bridge wings have to be designed in such a way that

optimal protection against weather conditions is

ensured.

The equipment has to be as complete as possible;

this concerns navigation as well as direct control of

the ship's lighting, propulsion engines, cargo,

con-dition of the ship's holds and comfort.

2

View of the environment

As wide as possible; 360' is always preferred.

Large windows, with horizontally moving

window-wipers and ample possibilities

for cleaning, for

example waterspray, gang-way outside front

win-dows, window heaters; any reflection from windows

must be avoided (slanting windows).

From the chart-table position an unobstructed 360'

view is preferred; the same holds for the radar stand.

Optimal view downwards from the bridge-wings on

the ship's sides.

3

Positioning of apparatus

Grouping of apparatus in consoles (information- and

operating centres) for navigation as well as for ship's

lighting, control of engines, etc.

Some kinds of apparatus have to be situated in such

a way that the information it supplies is perceptible

from every point on the bridge and bridge-wings

(rudder indicator, telegraph, log, depth indicator,

compass, tachometer).

If situated at the front of the wheelhouse, consoles

must not obstruct the immediate view.

There always must be ample space for standing close

to the windows.

Radar operation has to be such that at the

radar-stand at least two men can monitor the radar at the

same time; a navigation console a VHF and the

auto-pilot must be in the immediate vicinity; ample

9

I.

First alternative percentage of group members round-shaped compass clear-view screens steering by push-buttons one VHF pushbuttontelegraph radar in cabin First alternative

no signalization of machinery plant on the bridge

direct control of propulsion engines

from the bridge

signalization panel on the bridge indicating deviating values of the

machinery plant

no signalization on the bridge of

conditionofship and cargo

signalization panel for deviating

values of condition of ship and

cargo (ventilation, temperature, bilge water, smoke etc.)

00% 90 80 ci 40 2-2 30 20 10 168 38 361 COMM. 171 40 411 PROP 100% 50 0 [59 35 341 137 27 21] C/N and P combined (42)

Fig. 2. Percentages of group members rating preferences for five pairs of alternatives with regard to information on machinery

plant and condition of ship and cargo (x° test for significance; p = probability that the difference in preference is determined purely by chance; N.S. = not significant).

1111EMEIN MEE

V A7

/

.hr

/

or

A

tV /

v

A

AV /

A V A

MOE

Fig. 1 Percentages of group members rating preferences for six pairs of alternatives of equipment(22test for significance; p probability that the difference in preference is deter-mined purely by chance).

percentage of group members second alternative

50

146 23 201

second alternative difference between (p)

tape compass <.01 window-wipers <.001 steering by wheel <.001 two or more VHF's <.001 handle telegraph <.10 <.01 <.02

radar not in cabin

140 25 291

signalization of machinery plant on

the bridge p < .001

id., together with a display

indica-ting shaft revolutions p < .001

id., together with remote controls

to correct deviating values N.S.

signalization on the bridge of

condition ofship and cargo p < .001

id., together with remot controls

to correct deviating values p < .001

143 26 23) <.02 <.001 <.01 139 29 22) difference between alternatives (p) 150 30 281

STEER. RAD. 03S R.D.F. COURSE SOUND POS. IND. COND. S,C TOTAL

Fig. 3. Differences between groups of subjects in rating the relative importance of groups of instruments for optimal task performance

by captain and OW (combined).

VA C/N, P combined (47)

P(21)

C/N (26)

100% 50 0 50 alternatives groups

captains and navigating officers (C/N)

El

pilots (P)

El

foreign subjects (F) 70 60 50 92 91

space for plotting is necessary; operation of radar

equipment, especially in darkness, must be as simple

as possible and it should be possible to operate from

a sitting position.

A sufficient number of junction boxes for VHF

communication should be available.

Optimal communication facilities between

wheel-house and bridge-wings.

4

_{Lighting conditions}

All lighting facilities should be adjustable: general

lighting (ceiling), chart-table lighting, lighting on

consoles, of meters, dials, etc.

All lighting controls should be grouped (navigation-,

deck-, boatlighting, etc.).

(Alarm)controls must be lighted: air whistle,

morse-key.

5

Comfort

The following facilities are required: chairs, toilet (in

immediate

vicinity

of wheelhouse), wash-stand,

coffee machine, kitchenette, coat-hooks.

Noise of engines, fans, equipment must be avoided

as much as possible.

Good heating and airconditioning.

6

Remainder

Control of the instruments should be easy to learn

and simple.

Maintenance of wheelhouse must be easy, also the

accessibility of apparatus for this purpose.

Good choice of colours everywhere.

Possibilities for remote control of engines at more

than one place.

Small-sized equipment and apparatus.

Direct control of the engines.

Standardization.

5

Basic Design Requirements; Subjects'

Preferences for some Alternatives

With regard to basic requirements as mentioned in

chapter 4 several design alternatives exist for some

pieces of equipment and for the way in which

informa-tion is presented. For example, for unobstructed view

during bad weather one can use clear-view screens

or

window-wipers. The question was, what preferences do

exist for alternative solutions and are there

any

differences in preferences between groups of subjects.

5.1

Subjects

The subjects of the October 1973 group served in

judging alternatives of equipment (26 C/N's, 21 P's),

while the subjects of the June 1974 group judged

alternatives in presenting information on machinery

plant and ship's condition (26 C/N's, 16 P's).

5.2

Procedure

With the use of a simple checklist subjects could

respond which of the two alternatives of several design

possibilities they preferred.

5.3

Results

Preferences for equipment alternatives are presented in

Fig. 1. In only two cases there is a significant difference

between the subgroups. Fig. 2 presents preferences

with regard to information on machinery plant and

ship's condition. Preferences as well as differences

between groups were tested for significance with a

chi-square test on absolute numbers. Both figures do

not need further explanation.

6

_{Basic Information and Operation Requirements in}

Performing Duties

Apart from basic requirements for overall

bridge

design from the point of view of acting functionaries

as

well as ergonomic experts, it is considered necessary to

have additional data on basic information needed by

bridge personnel in performing their duties. Together

with these data it will be possible to design optimally

for example a captain's or a helmsman's console by

knowing what dials, meters and controls

are essential

and in what order.

6.1

Subjects

In

formulating

basic

information

and operation

requirements the June 1974 group served as subjects:

26 captains and navigating officers,

16 pilots and

17 foreign subjects.

6.2

Procedure

A checklist was used (see Appendix 2) which presented

a rather complete list of essential navigation apparatus

and instruments.

Subjects were asked to fill in this list for captain,

officer of the watch (OW), pilot and helmsman, by

putting checkmarks at the instruments and/or controls

which they thought essential for optimal task

perfor-mance of these members of the bridge personnel.

For this purpose four sea areas were distinguished

each in good and poor visibility: open sea, restricted

waters, piloted waters and berthing. So for each pair of

man and instrument there were eight situations in total

(areas x visibility).