15.08.2017

1

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

The problem is not automation, the problem is communication:Autonomy, human factors and safety in the maritime domain

Thomas PoratheProfessor, Interaction Design

Department of Product DesignNorwegian University of Science and Technology

Trondheim

Monitoring Navigator Navigating Automation

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no2 (44)

RMS Oceanic, 1914

15.08.2017

2

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no3 (44)

RMS Oceanic, 1914

RadioEcho sounderRDFRADARDECCA/LORANGPSECDISAIS

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

In 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Centre presented a human factors study made on two commercial ECDIS placed on a simulator bridge. They concluded that

• ECDIS had the potential to improve upon the safety of navigation, compared to conventional procedures.

• There was strong evidence that the use of ECDIS increased the accuracy of navigation, as measured by a smaller cross-track distance of the ship from the planned track line, and reduced the proportion of time spent on navigation, with a corresponding increase in the proportion of time spent on the higher risk collision avoidance task. In addition, ECDlS was shown to improve geographic "situational awareness" and to reduce navigation "errors”. (Smith et al., 1995, p. VIII)"Navigation goes away as a task" 

Smith, M. W., Akerstrom-Hoffman, R. A., Pizzariello, C. M., Siegel, S. I., Schreiber, T. E., & Gonin, I. M. (1995). Human Factors Evaluation of Electronic Chart Display and Information

Systems (ECDIS): United States Cost Guard Research and Development Center.

ECDIS

15.08.2017

3

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no5 (44)

AutomationSS Oceanic, 1914 MV Kong Harald, 2014

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

”e‐Navigation” 2009 ‐

15.08.2017

4

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Monitoring Navigator Navigating Automation

Challenge: Keeping the navigator in the loop

Automation on the ship bridge

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

84‐88% of tanker accidents 

79% of towing vessel groundings 

89‐96% of collisions 

75% of allisions – ship/structure accidents 

75% of ship fires and explosions 

“Human error” contribution to accidents

Various studies by TSB Canada, Cormier, UK P&I Club and Bryant. http://www.wmu.se.fortet.funcform.se/o.o.i.s/71

15.08.2017

5

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

http://www.iumi.com/images/documents/IUMI2016/IUMI_2016_Astrid‐Seltmann_180916.pdf

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Amplifying human abilities

Automation is good

15.08.2017

6

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Automation is good

‐ but have some problems

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no12 (44)

Automation bias

15.08.2017

7

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no13 (44)

Automation bias Trust in automation

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no14 (44)

Automation bias Trust in automation

Automation reliability

Subjective trust

15.08.2017

8

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no15 (44)

Automation bias Trust in automation

Automation reliabilitySubjective trust

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no16 (44)

Radio direction finder(1902)

Here using a large multi‐loop antenna to perform RDF in this 1919 photo. This is a fairly small unit for the era

15.08.2017

9

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no17 (44)

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no18 (44)

15.08.2017

10

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no19 (44)

Did not trust automation when they should have

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no20 (44)

Automation bias

Under-trust

Automation reliability

Subjective trust

15.08.2017

11

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no21 (44)

Tokyo-Yokohama earthquake of 1 September 1923, with a magnitude of 7.9. The death toll from the temblor was estimated to have exceeded 140,000.

Tsunami up to 12 m (39 ft) in Atami, Shizuoka, and  Tōkai

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

15.08.2017

12

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no24 (44)

Automation bias

Over-trust

Automation reliability

Subjective trust

15.08.2017

13

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no25 (44)

The 'problem' with automation is inappropriate feedback and interaction, not 'over‐automation' 

(Donald Norman, 1990)

Norman, D. The problem of automation: Innappropreate feedback and interaction, not over‐automation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 327, No. 1241, Human Factors in Hazardous Situations (Apr. 12, 1990), pp. 585‐593 

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

15.08.2017

14

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Boston

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

15.08.2017

15

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

The Royal Majesty aground in 1995

15.08.2017

16

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Did trust automation when they shouldn't have

15.08.2017

17

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

15.08.2017

18

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Monitoring Navigator Navigating Automation

Challenge: Keeping the navigator in the loop

Automation on the ship bridge

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

”Boredom induced accidents”

Captain Andy MollMarine Accident Investigation Branch, UK

RIN conference Human Cognition: Enabling Navigation Exploring Humanity’s relationship with Technology in NavigationTrinity House, London 10th June 2015

15.08.2017

19

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

The Yerkes–Dodson law

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

IMO’s Sub‐Committee on Radio Communications and Search and Rescue (COMSAR) in 2011 decided “that the navigator should be kept in the loop as a navigating navigator”

IMO: COMSAR 15/16. Report to the Maritime Safety Committee, 25 March 2011 

15.08.2017

20

Shore Control Center

Ship owner

VTS

Pilot

AutonomousUnmanned

ship

Tugs

Mooring

MannedSOLAS vessels

VHF

VHF

RC

Radio Control (RC)

RC

Flag state

Kystvakt/Navy

Manned Non-SOLAS vessels

Humans in the unmanned ship system

15.08.2017

21

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Monitoring Navigator Navigating Automation

Challenge: Keeping the navigator in the loop

Automation on the ship bridge

15.08.2017

22

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Navigating NavigatorMonitoring Automation

(”The English butler”)

thomas.porathe@ntnu.no

Research questions:What will the HMI for remote control centres look like?Who is manning these centres: navigators or operators?What will their tasks be? What is automated, whatis manual? (Use of “adaptive automation”?)