日本財団 図書館

共通ヘッダを読みとばす


Top > 産業 > 運輸.交通 > 成果物情報

Conference Proceedings Vol. I, II, III

 事業名 海事シミュレーションと船舶操縦に関する国際会議の開催
 団体名 日本船舶海洋工学会 注目度注目度5


5. TARGET OF ANALYSIS
 We applied discourse analysis methods to actual cooperation, which were conducted in BRM trainings. The trainings were carried out by Japan Marine Science, Inc. as 3 days training course from May 28 to Jun I , 2002. In the course, 8 times simulator trainings were conducted. Each of simulator training is around 40 minutes. Among 8 times of trainings, we selected 2 trainings, No. 3 and No. 8, where the ship runs on the westbound lane off Singapore port. The scenario is most difficult among others, since the area is heavily congested, and an effective corporation is required for safe navigation. From here, we refer the training No.3 as Training A, No.8 as Training B.
 
Fig.7 
The trail of the ship in a training, the ship navigated in the westbound lane off Singapore port (in Training B)
 
 In each training scenario, Captain has a full responsibility for navigation. 2/O is assigned duties, such as lookout and communication. 3/O is assigned duties, such as positioning and engine control. Q/M is responsible for helm. And each crew is instructed to cooperate to avoid errors by communications, cross check and other human error factors.
 
 Table.1 shows characteristics of trainings that we analyzed. There are significant differences in the number of utterances between Training A and Training B.
 
Table 1 Characteristics of analyzed training
Training Training A Training B
Num. of Utterances among crews 366 713
Num. of Exchanges 139 289
Scenario Singapore Singapore
Duration 41:21 42:31
 
 Members are playing different roles in each of trainings. In the training B, an expert plays Captain role, on the contrary, non-expert works as Captain in the training A.
 
6. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TEAM INTERACTIONS ON A BRIDGE
6.1. Communication Flow
 
 Fig.8 shows communication flows among crews. The number on each of arrows shows the frequency of utterances. This diagram shows a clear structure that Captain is in the center of the organization and most of all communications occur between Captain and a crew. The number of communications in Training B is higher than that in Training A. Especially communication between Captain and Q/M shows high frequency.
 
Fig.8 Communication flow among crews
 
Training A
 
Training B
 
6.2 Exchanged Information
 
 Fig.9 shows the distribution of exchanged information. Unit is the number of exchange, which consists of several utterances. In both training, communications about another vessel are frequently occurred. In Training B, communications about helm order shows high frequency This is the major factor of the difference of the total number of utterances between two trainings.
 
Fig.9 Frequency of Exchanges
 
 Fig.10 shows the distribution of elements that composes communications about another ship. In both cases, distance to another ship is most frequently exchanged. In Training A positions of other ships are often mentioned, however, movements of other ships are attended in Training B. CPA is an acronym of Closest Point of Approach.
 
Fig.10 Distribution of elements regarding to another vessel
 
 Fig.11 shows the distribution of elements that relate to maneuvering. This shows significant difference in a way of cooperative maneuvering. In Training A, Captain orders to Q/M by indicating a course and Q/M is responsible for controlling helm. However, in Training B, Captain orders by rudder angle. It requires frequent exchanges of information about the rudder angle and the ship rotation between Captain and Q/M. The differences in maneuvering method contributed to the difference of the number of conversations in each of training.







サイトに関するご意見・ご質問・お問合せ   サイトマップ   個人情報保護

日本財団会長笹川陽平ブログはこちら



ランキング
注目度とは?
成果物アクセスランキング
124位
(31,488成果物中)

成果物アクセス数
103,860

集計期間:成果物公開〜現在
更新日: 2019年9月21日

関連する他の成果物

1.MARSIM'03 開催報告
2.本会議及びワークショップ開催状況写真
3.九州における離島住民からみた交通バリアフリー化に関する調査研究?鹿児島県をモデルケースとして? 報告書
  [ 同じカテゴリの成果物 ]


アンケートにご協力
御願いします

この成果物は
お役に立ちましたか?


とても役に立った
まあまあ
普通
いまいち
全く役に立たなかった


この成果物をどのような
目的でご覧になりましたか?


レポート等の作成の
参考資料として
研究の一助として
関係者として参照した
興味があったので
間違って辿り着いただけ


ご意見・ご感想

ここで入力されたご質問・資料請求には、ご回答できません。






その他・お問い合わせ
ご質問は こちら から