# ColRegs



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

My attention has been drawn to this..

http://www.totemplus.com/colregs.html

I would be interested to see how it differentiates between ship types? (AIS feed perhaps) the mind truly boggles, one must hope that it is better than some of the software and training videos peddled by one well known company


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

If this kind of thing becomes widespread - and I've no doubt it will - then it will only reinforce the already large number of muppets presently at sea who know nothing about the Colregs and whose response to a close quarters situation is to immediately call the other ship up on VHF and ask its intentions. It's actually a rare occurence these days for another vessel to NOT call you up or to actually take early action without prompting.
It would also make worse the ever growing problem of watchkeepers heads being permanently buried in a Radar/ECDIS screen and therefore not keeping a decent visual lookout, as the little box of tricks give them all the answers.
I often wonder what would happen if GPS was suddenly jammed on the English Channel or Singapore Strait, as most modern watchkeepers simply wouldn't have a clue how to react.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

James_C said:


> If this kind of thing becomes widespread - and I've no doubt it will - then it will only reinforce the already large number of muppets presently at sea who know nothing about the Colregs and whose response to a close quarters situation is to immediately call the other ship up on VHF and ask its intentions. It's actually a rare occurence these days for another vessel to NOT call you up or to actually take early action without prompting.
> It would also make worse the ever growing problem of watchkeepers heads being permanently buried in a Radar/ECDIS screen and therefore not keeping a decent visual lookout, as the little box of tricks give them all the answers.
> I often wonder what would happen if GPS was suddenly jammed on the English Channel or Singapore Strait, as most modern watchkeepers simply wouldn't have a clue how to react.


I am sure you are right. One of our car carrier masters told me his usual response to calls of 'What are your intentions' was 'to follow the rules of the road as I expect you to do'.

Perhaps there is something electronics can do well (although it doesn't do so at the moment) - if we are to deprive the OOW of the practice he needs to maintain, or acquire, the skills we wise old advisers advise (well, old anyway) then I am afraid to say the electronics must communicate ship to ship. The brain is a powerful error correcting device, which is why Morse endured so long and why 'Hi-Fi' is not as Hi or as Fi as might be supposed. The trouble with OOWs using VHF between one another is that the brain is also capable of hearing meaning in the callers message which isn't there (I often accused one of my managers of listening faster than I was talking).

That the machine is not good at replacing missing information would be an advantage in such an intership conversation. Were AIS to be used universally (but how could that be achieved) with additional variables for informing listeners of manoeuvring commands or something similar.


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

Varley said:


> I am sure you are right. One of our car carrier masters told me his usual response to calls of 'What are your intentions' was 'to follow the rules of the road as I expect you to do'.
> 
> Perhaps there is something electronics can do well (although it doesn't do so at the moment) - if we are to deprive the OOW of the practice he needs to maintain, or acquire, the skills we wise old advisers advise (well, old anyway) then I am afraid to say the electronics must communicate ship to ship. The brain is a powerful error correcting device, which is why Morse endured so long and why 'Hi-Fi' is not as Hi or as Fi as might be supposed. The trouble with OOWs using VHF between one another is that the brain is also capable of hearing meaning in the callers message which isn't there (I often accused one of my managers of listening faster than I was talking).
> 
> That the machine is not good at replacing missing information would be an advantage in such an intership conversation. Were AIS to be used universally (but how could that be achieved) with additional variables for informing listeners of manoeuvring commands or something similar.


I remember reading an article on the aviation industry and the increasing use of automation that suggested that having pilots monitoring the auto pilot was not, perhaps, the best way, evidently humans are better at doing than monitoring and machines better at monitoring than doing. 

There have been several accidents (Notably the A320 at Habsheim) where one of the causes was the computer not letting the pilot fly the plane properly ( after 10 years in prison it turned out that Airbus had switched the data recorders post crash to disguise computer faults)


----------



## Azriel Rahav (Nov 7, 2013)

*Answer from the author.*



Duncan112 said:


> My attention has been drawn to this..
> 
> http://www.totemplus.com/colregs.html
> 
> I would be interested to see how it differentiates between ship types? (AIS feed perhaps) the mind truly boggles, one must hope that it is better than some of the software and training videos peddled by one well known company


Hello Duncan - I saw your post and registered into the forum so I can give you an answer. A short introduction: my name is Azriel Rahav, Captain, and I wrote most of this COLREGS program myself. The program indeed uses the AIS information about vessel types (and vessel status), but allows the user to change it temporarily if he is sure the info is missing (as with ARPA target) or not correct. Manual entries will be in a different color and can be automatically updated from the AIS after a set time. 

The system is not designed to replace the OOW but to assist him with Decision Support - it does all the mathematics for several ships within a set range, for the selected minimum CPA, and gives the mathematical result for the OOW according to COLREGS. Proper lookout and good seamanship should not be slackened because of it.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Azriel, Splendid you should come here to discuss your work.

How do you deal with non AIS targets? Despite your advocacy of maintaining a seamanlike watch commercial bridges risk becoming a place, at best, where non commercial tonnage - equally capable of precipitating a disaster as their businesslike counterparts - must take second place as it is not compelled to equip to the same standard.

The world is going 'your way' and, despite denials and the best of intentions, it is being done to reduce the risk of human error. It sounds good but for there to be a coin in the first place there must be two sides.

Maintain/establish a low accident rate by removing command decisions from the OOW.

Maintain/establish OOW with less tested decision competence without allowing the accident rate to rise. 

So what is the problem? The problem is that the kit will fail (not least because managers will attempt to keep the silicon horse in harness long after it should be put to grass) and then the OOW will be left, if not actually without the skill, at least suddenly disconcerted by the loss of his normal 'interface'. Just when you may need a finely honed manual skill you find you only have a CNC operator.

I had also heard the argument in the aero industry that the silicon should be a supervisor and not the operator - I am not sure whether the 'art' was changed or not. The loss of AF447 suggests not.

I am beginning to think that we must go the whole hog by removing the OOW from the equation or leave the beast alone altogether and have high and proven competence OOWs with the silicon simply 'aids'. 
.


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

One cannot help wondering what would happen when a computerized system such as this experiences sensory overload, such as when transiting areas in which multiple targets are being tracked from a variety of directions simultaneously. The English Channel, the Straits of Gibraltar and the Singapore Straits come immediately to mind. For instance, what happens when altering course to avoid one target puts the vessel into a collision situation with another vessel? It seems to me that there are still times when a human mind is better able to assess a situation than a machine.

As for calling another ship and asking their intentions, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as one is sure that one is talking to the intended vessel. The problems with that arise in heavy traffic situations, when there are many ships within a small area, and nearly every ship is on some other vessel's port bow. under such cir***stances how is one to know for which "ship on my port bow" a call is intended? One of the most useful features of AIS is to identify the ships in the immediate vicinity, eliminating that hitherto frequent source of confusion.


----------



## Azriel Rahav (Nov 7, 2013)

Varley said:


> Azriel, Splendid you should come here to discuss your work.
> 
> How do you deal with non AIS targets? Despite your advocacy of maintaining a seamanlike watch commercial bridges risk becoming a place, at best, where non commercial tonnage - equally capable of precipitating a disaster as their businesslike counterparts - must take second place as it is not compelled to equip to the same standard.
> 
> ...


The issue of COLREGS and our decision support tool is so vast, so there are many topics to cover:
1. Non AIS targets : we do treat both AIS and ARPA targets and compute the solution based on this info. Every ARPA radar can transmit the data on a serial line which we process and display. 
2. Most of the disasters in the last year were by commercial tonnage, and we had more than 10 collisions resulting with more than 27 deaths. Further, most of the collisions were not in busy traffic. So lets first deal with that issue - which is exactly what Totem Plus system does - and then sort of the legislation for the non-commercial sector (an important issue, no doubt).
3. Failures : those will always happen and we all experienced them. I had my share of hand steering and even emergency steering when auto pilots failed, radar failures when we still had only one radar on board, etc. I am sure most of us had such cases and we did our best to cope. However IMO did consider this issue and today most ships have redundant systems (radars, GPS, Gyro etc.). The Collision avoidance system is part of the ECDIS which on a paperless ship should be dual. 
4. The question of OOW skills is again very serious and we could dwell on this for long. We will all be very happy to see better officers, better training and better capabilities. For collision avoidance, I am in the opinion that OOW that regularly follow the computerized advise will follow the same principles when the system fails, and the basic principle is one : follow the colregs. 
5. I will not relieve the OOW so fast. Such systems should be in use for some years before we can trust them completely. For now, it is doing what it should : giving the OOW Decision support, not replacing him.


----------



## Azriel Rahav (Nov 7, 2013)

Klaatu83 said:


> One cannot help wondering what would happen when a computerized system such as this experiences sensory overload, such as when transiting areas in which multiple targets are being tracked from a variety of directions simultaneously. The English Channel, the Straits of Gibraltar and the Singapore Straits come immediately to mind. For instance, what happens when altering course to avoid one target puts the vessel into a collision situation with another vessel? It seems to me that there are still times when a human mind is better able to assess a situation than a machine.
> 
> As for calling another ship and asking their intentions, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as one is sure that one is talking to the intended vessel. The problems with that arise in heavy traffic situations, when there are many ships within a small area, and nearly every ship is on some other vessel's port bow. under such cir***stances how is one to know for which "ship on my port bow" a call is intended? One of the most useful features of AIS is to identify the ships in the immediate vicinity, eliminating that hitherto frequent source of confusion.


I agree that at times the Human mind is better in assessing a situation. However computers are better in doing math, and this is the issue here: taking all relevant targets, do the math for each, and merge the data. Normally OOW do not have the time or tools to do it. Now he gets it from this system. And the system do the math for ALL the targets within the set range, trying to avoid exactly those cases where giving way to one target results in close proximity with another. The min CPA is valid for ALL targets within the set range. 

As for the overload, this do happen when there are too many targets - we had cases with more than 800 AIS targets - and in such cases there is no other option than to filter them and consider only the max number of targets up to a certain range. Those cases happen regularly in Singapore and Shanghai approaches. 

VHF conversations are not within the scope of our system, but I do have my stand point : I think that IMO should make it clear that VHF cannot be an excuse to deviate from COLREGS. Too many collisions happened when such "agreements" where not followed or understood.


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

Azriel, thank you for your clarification on this, I am worried on two counts, one being that the system appears to be an extension of the old Raython system on the early ARPAS with PADs (Predicted Areas of Danger) which enabled lazy navigators to dance between them to the consternation of all, this still goes on, together with the collision assistance by VHF alluded to above. 

Secondly, and possibly more worryingly is the fact that navigators using the system will come to rely on it and get out of practise in the use of manual methods and the MK1 eyeball, so when the system goes down, or is faced with a scenario beyond its program the experience will not be there to make the correct and timely decision. This is already prevalent in some sections of the air line industry where pilots have become rusty at flying and landing aircraft, being used to using the automatics that when the time comes for system failure the pilot is unpractised at landing.


----------



## Azriel Rahav (Nov 7, 2013)

Duncan112 said:


> Azriel, thank you for your clarification on this, I am worried on two counts, one being that the system appears to be an extension of the old Raython system on the early ARPAS with PADs (Predicted Areas of Danger) which enabled lazy navigators to dance between them to the consternation of all, this still goes on, together with the collision assistance by VHF alluded to above.
> 
> Secondly, and possibly more worryingly is the fact that navigators using the system will come to rely on it and get out of practise in the use of manual methods and the MK1 eyeball, so when the system goes down, or is faced with a scenario beyond its program the experience will not be there to make the correct and timely decision. This is already prevalent in some sections of the air line industry where pilots have become rusty at flying and landing aircraft, being used to using the automatics that when the time comes for system failure the pilot is unpractised at landing.


Hello Duncan. On the first question I do have a clear answer - it has nothing to do with the old Raytheon system. It is completely new and I will happily send you more data on how it works if you are interested. It does have the COLREGS inside and will advise the OOW on exact course change or speed change to stay clear of all targets. Possibibly I should also add that such systems are not designed to be used for piloting and narrow straits, but rather for open waters where half a mile CPA is possible (min allowed CPA is 0.4M). I wouldn't trust the computer yet for passing 20 meters from another target. 

As for the second issue, I have no good answer. Probably we should blame the technology. I have seen the transition from Sextant and bearings to GPS, and we all know the current level of navigation. How many officers can take a sight if the GPS fails? still GPS is a very good instrument and probably prevented many accidents. Same goes for other practices - I am not sure many officers can use the aldis lamp if the VHF's are broken and if anyone can answer them. So certain trades get the people rusty when technology enters, we must accept it as part of evolution.


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Guys, A little late in the day but this subject is now being discussed on the LinkedIn Master Mariner forum?


----------

