In the vast, unpredictable expanse of the open sea, even the most seasoned navigators can find themselves in a pickle when it comes to interpreting the rules of the road. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, better known as COLREGs, are the maritime equivalent of the highway code, but as it turns out, they’re not always as clear-cut as they seem. A recent study, led by Deuk-Jin Park from the Division of Marine Production System Management at Pukyong National University in Busan, South Korea, has shed some light on the fuzzy zones where navigators struggle to apply these rules consistently.
Park and his team set out to model how navigators interpret COLREGs in borderline encounter situations, like when a vessel is teetering between being head-on and crossing, or overtaking and crossing. They quizzed 101 licensed navigators using simulated ship encounter scenarios, asking them to evaluate situations with varying relative bearings. The results, published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, revealed some interesting insights.
It turns out that navigator awareness isn’t a black-and-white affair. Instead, it’s a probabilistic function of encounter angle, with sharp shifts in awareness near 008° and 160°. These are the cognitively unstable zones, where navigators are more likely to be uncertain about how to apply the rules. As Park puts it, “Navigator awareness is not deterministic but probabilistically structured and context sensitive.”
So, what does this mean for the maritime industry? Well, for starters, it highlights the need for better training and support for navigators in these ambiguous situations. But it also opens up opportunities for innovation, particularly in the realm of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). By understanding these interpretive transition zones, we can design algorithms that are better equipped to handle uncertainty and make safer decisions.
The study also has implications for the refinement of COLREGs themselves. If we can identify where the rules are causing confusion, we can work towards making them clearer and more consistent. This could lead to a reduction in collisions and near-misses, making our seas safer for everyone.
But perhaps the most exciting opportunity lies in the development of new technologies to support navigators in real-time. Imagine a system that could analyze an encounter situation, assess the level of uncertainty, and provide guidance on the most appropriate course of action. This could be a game-changer, not just for MASS, but for all vessels at sea.
In the meantime, it’s clear that we need to acknowledge and address the cognitive uncertainty that navigators face. As Park notes, “Risk-averse interpretation patterns were also observed, where navigators tended to classify borderline situations more conservatively under uncertainty.” This suggests that navigators are already adapting to these challenges, but they could benefit from more structured support.
So, the next time you’re out at sea and find yourself in a borderline encounter situation, remember that you’re not alone. Navigators everywhere are grappling with the same challenges, and thanks to studies like Park’s, we’re one step closer to finding a solution.