Function based bridge operation (03-2014)

1
National Transportation Safety Board
Forum on Cruise Ships, March 25 – 26, 2014
FUNCTION-BASED BRIDGE ORGANISATION
H. G. Hederstrom, Managing Director, Center for Simulator Maritime Training, CSMART, Part of the Carnival
Corporation & plc Group, Almere, The Netherlands.
SUMMARY
In 2008 two of Carnival’s brand lines – Carnival UK and Princess Cruises -- introduced a new bridge organisation. The
new organisation represented a new and more progressive approach to bridge management. Under this approach, the
officers operate as a true team in managing the bridge based on the specific functions needed to be followed and
executed. The purpose is to create a more efficient, engaged and resilient organisation in which the team works as a
well-coordinated unit to manage disturbances and avoid negative consequences.
The system builds on the airline industry’s concept by introducing Navigator and Co-Navigator functions with clear task
allocations. The Navigator, who is conning the ship, is required to communicate intentions and orders to the Co-
Navigator. The task of the Co-Navigator is to monitor, cross-check and support the Navigator. In addition, each officer,
regardless of rank, is empowered to speak up should he or she have a question or concern.
This function-based bridge organization does not in any diminish the authority and responsibility of the Captain. The
Captain continues to maintain full oversight of the bridge and assigns officers to particular functions, based on the watch
keeper’s competence and experience with the upcoming operation. The Captain provides ongoing guidance to officers,
making it a very adaptable system that leverages the knowledge and experience of the Captain and each of the officers.
1. INTRODUCTION
During summer 2007, four groups of nautical educators
travelled on eight ships operated by P&O Cruises and
Princess Cruises to evaluate the company’s Safety
Management System (SMS) with particular focus on
Bridge Resource Management (BRM). These
professionals were asked to formally report back on their
observations and recommendations for improvement.
The educators were in agreement that all ships were
operated to a high standard of traditional Bridge
Organisation. However, with today’s pressure of
operating large cruise ships in ports with minimal
operational margins, the educators also agreed that
traditional organisational standards have reached their
limits of efficiency.
With modern, ever-larger cruise ships, it is essential that
navigation and manoeuvring are carried out with high
precision using all resources available -- technical,
procedural and human resources.
Recommendations from the educators covered the
following aspects:
Officers’ understanding of bridge navigation
equipment
Voyage planning
New bridge organization and procedures
Simulator training in new organization and
procedures
Working with Pilots
Onboard implementation of new organization
and procedures
To meet these recommendations, P&O Cruises and
Princess Cruises decided to set up their own training
centre with actual bridge equipment and with a layout
identical to the one onboard their most modern vessels.
In July 2009 the Center for Simulator Maritime Training
(CSMART) became operational with six Part-Task and
two Full Mission Bridge simulators.
2. UNDERSTANDING BRIDGE EQUIPMENT
The first recommendation has been dealt with in four
significant steps:
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
model course 1.27 (40 hours) taught at
CSMART
Type-specific equipment training (40 hours)
taught at CSMART
Onboard follow up by instructors
Introduction of Bridge Familiarisation Checklist

2
“ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display Information System)
is a complex software-based system developed in
accordance with IMO and IHO (International
Hydrographic Organization) standards. It is vitally
important that mariners are fully familiar with the
capabilities and limitations of ECDIS; with this
knowledge, mariners can make the most efficient use of
the systems and avoid the pitfalls.” [1]
2.1 OVER-RELIANCE
Quite often it is claimed that bridge officers are over-
reliant in the use of bridge equipment and automation.
Looking out the window is the common recommendation
to officers to overcome over-reliance. Looking into
accident statistics, however, we find that a common
contributing factor to many accidents is under-reliance or
under-utilization of the bridge equipment as this is where
some of the barriers preventing the accident have been
found. Over-reliance on human perception and human
vision in particular is widespread in the maritime world
and has been the contributing factor to incidents and
accidents. “Today we have instrument navigation backed
up with visual clues; thirty years ago it was the other way
around”. [6]
The challenge with highly automated navigation systems
is to detect and manage system malfunctions. The
onboard familiarization should require the officers to
demonstrate both competency in operating the entire
system, and understanding of its weaknesses and
limitations.
For effective bridge operation and watch keeping,
officers should develop a scanning pattern for monitoring
the navigation and the automation equipment, which
includes monitoring of sensors combined with visual
confirmation of the situation. If officers neglect to
actively monitor their equipment and sensors and
confirm visually, it would be a case of complacency, not
over-reliance.
3. ECDIS COURSE
The ECDIS course at CSMART is a 40-hour course
accredited by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(MCA) and the Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate (NSI).
In order to prepare for the course, all participants receive
pre-reading material two weeks before the beginning of
the course.
CSMART simulators are equipped with the same cutting-
edge technology equipment installed onboard the latest
ships. For the training of ECDIS, there are six part-task
simulators with a 120-degrees view built to Det Norske
Veritas (DNV) Class B standards.
The training is divided between short blocks of
theoretical and practical training, where the participants
are only required to turn their chairs to focus their
attention from one to the other. (See picture.)
Picture 1: ECDIS training at CSMART using type-
specific NACOS XX-5 equipment
Students’ proficiency is assessed at the end of each day
and at the end of the course to ensure participants have
acquired knowledge and skills according to course
objectives.
3.1 TYPE SPECIFIC TRAINING
In addition to the basic ECDIS course, CSMART also
provides a 40-hour follow-up course dealing with
corporate procedures for electronic voyage planning.
The follow-up course also emphasizes the dangers of
automation and limitations of the specific Integrated
Navigation System (INS) by looking at abnormal
operating conditions. Integrity monitoring of ECDIS and
INS and failures with the associated recovery measures
are reproduced and demonstrated.
3.2 VOYAGE PLAN
The second recommendation from the 2007 survey is the
understanding that a detailed, well-prepared and properly
briefed Voyage Plan is critical to all ship operations. This
ensures that the bridge team shares the same mental
model of the vessel’s intended track and proximity to
navigational hazards. The definition of clear limits for
acceptable navigation margins and speed provides
opportunities for any bridge team member, regardless of
rank, to challenge a situation that deviates from the
approved Voyage Plan.
The Voyage Plan creates the foundation for the overall
control process performed during the execution of the
passage. A need for accurate Voyage Planning
procedures that go beyond the obsolete and vague
guidelines set by the IMO is paramount to address the
gaps created in recent years by increased automation and
newly introduced technologies (such as ECDIS). In

3
order to bridge this gap, Carnival Corporation has
developed Corporate Voyage Planning procedures,
which is currently being implemented on all vessels.
4. TRADITIONAL BRIDGE ORGANISATION
‘Traditional’ bridge organisation refers here to an
organisation where the Captain is acting alone as the
operator of the vessel or “Conning” the vessel (See
Picture 2). In this capacity, the Captain relies on both his
own visual navigation and supporting verbal information
being supplied by the watch officer, who will be
interpreting relevant information from the ECDIS. If the
Bridge is being operated under this type of Organisation
in a heavy traffic situation on approach to a pilot station,
it is a daunting task for the Captain to try to process all of
the information being provided to him. There is
obviously a risk for the Captain to run into a mental
overload situation and the potential for poor decision-
making arises.
Despite this risk, exponents of the traditional bridge
organisation explain that the most experienced and
skilled person is conning the vessel and therefore should
be able to process all relevant information at his level of
experience and seniority.
Traditional systems are often considered easier and
cheaper to operate from the perspective of HR, Training
and Personnel departments.
The current system has been in place for a long time and
survived over the generations for good reason.
However, this arrangement has several weaknesses:
Available resources – especially human,
technical and organisational -- are not fully
utilised
The gap in skills and experience between the
Captain and bridge team is growing wider as
each operation is conducted.
This ever-widening gap in experience and skills
makes it less likely that the team members
behind the Captain will speak up if there is
something not observed by the Captain or a poor
decision is made. Clear assertive input is needed
when there is any doubt to whether an order is
appropriate, and this could be very difficult for
an inexperienced officer to judge.
It will always be difficult for a junior bridge
team member to be assertive towards the
Captain – and the traditional way of managing
resources makes it even harder.
Team members in this environment have a
tendency to lose interest and motivation as they
are not allowed to do what they have been
trained for. They turn into passive bystanders
instead of feeling empowered in being able to
actively support the Captain.
In combination with poor leadership, this will
lead to decreased work satisfaction and a
decrease in performance, efficiency and safety.
When officers one day are promoted to Captain,
they lack required skills and experience.
Picture 2.
Although this traditional system does have the few
advantages stated, its limitations, particularly with regard
to today’s modern equipment, bridge layouts and
thinking in the use of human resources, far outweigh the
advantages.
A better system is available that involves the whole
Bridge Team supported by a Leader who can lead and
provide expertise while keenly observing the operation
from behind.
5. SAFETY IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF
ERRORS AND VIOLATIONS
“We don’t believe that error or any other negatives,
incidence or violations are useful targets for interventions
as if safety lies beyond an incident free horizon. We
don’t believe that safety should be defined as the absence
of something, that you have to count error and monitor
violations and tabulate incidents and then try to make
those things go away”. [3]
“Safety is not about the absence of something, it is about
the presence of something. When we find that things go
right under difficult circumstances it’s mostly because of
people’s adaptive capacity, their ability to recognise,
adapt to and absorb changes and disruptions.” [3]
People create safety through teamwork using all
available resources – specifically human, technical and
organisational resources. Successful teams who are using
all available resources have certain characteristics in
common, such as, but not limited to:
They have a detailed plan for the operation

4
They have a plan B as an alternative
They work from the same mental model
They are proactive and anticipate next condition
They monitor progress and keep options open
They communicate about the situation
They monitor each other
They adhere to Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs)
They cross-check all actions before execution
They challenge any deviation from the plan
They debrief and learn from each other after
each major event
These characteristics are hallmarks of the function-based
bridge organisation.
6. NEW BRIDGE ORGANISATION BASED
ON FUNCTIONS
Even if we select the most suitable persons and give
them the best possible training to perform their task,
“workplace variations” or “human errors” will still
happen.
Prof. James Reason wrote: “Workplaces and
Organisations are easier to manage than the minds of
individual workers. You cannot change the human
condition, but you can change the conditions under
which people work.” [4]
This statement, “you can change the conditions under
which people work.” provides the foundation for the
philosophy behind the Function-Based Bridge
Organisation.
The purpose of the function-based bridge organisation is
to create an error recovery capability or “organisational
redundancy.” The system is supposed to protect bridge
team members from their own fallibility before it leads to
negative consequences.
The function-based bridge organization does not
diminish the authority of the Captain. The Captain
assigns officers to particular functions based on the
watch keeper’s competence and experience with the
upcoming operation, making it a very adaptable system.
The function-based bridge organization also lowers
hierarchical barriers and enhances teamwork and
communication.
The system builds on the concept of function-based
organisation that was first advanced by the aviation
industry. It achieves this by introducing the Navigator
and Co-Navigator functions with clear task allocations.
The Navigator, who is conning the ship, is required to
communicate intentions and orders to the Co-Navigator.
This means that no course changes or engine orders will
be carried out without an agreement and confirmation
from the Co-Navigator. These new protocols also require
a double-watch keeping system with a minimum of two
bridge officers on watch at all times when the ship is
underway.
6.1 DEFINITION OF FUNCTIONAL POSITIONS
AND MAIN RELATED TASKS
The following assigned tasks are part of the function-
based bridge organization:
Operations Director
Overview of the entire bridge operation,
ensuring that it is carried out at all times in
accordance with company procedures.
Provision of guidance and suggestions to other
members of the bridge team as necessary or
appropriate.
Direct monitoring of both the Navigator and Co-
Navigator, ensuring that safe passage is
maintained and that no internal or external
influences are permitted to distract them from
their primary tasks.
Navigator
Responsible for conning, navigating the ship
following the passage plan and collision
avoidance practices.
Ensures that the bridge team (including the
Pilot) is aware of planned actions and intentions
by “Thinking Aloud.”
Co-Navigator
Monitors and cross-checks the actions of the
Navigator.
Supports, challenges and recommends actions to
the Navigator.
Administrator
Responsible for fixing the ship’s position when
paper charts are in use.
Responsible for alarm management and actions.
Prioritizes alarms as either “urgent” or “non-
urgent.”
Lookout
Maintains all-around lookout by sight and by
hearing, reporting all sightings and/or sound
signals to the Navigator, unless otherwise
directed.
Helmsman
Acknowledges and executes steering orders
given by the person with the conn.
6.2 THE CAPTAIN AS A LEADER INSTEAD OF
AN OPERATOR

5
It is up to the Captain to decide who should fulfill any of
the functions. A Risk Factors Table and a Risk Analysis
and Bridge Manning Level Table have been developed to
assist the Captain in deciding what manning level to set.
Those manning levels are:
Green Manning:
Minimum bridge manning required underway.
In Green Manning, the bridge is manned by two
officers in the functions of Navigator and a Co-
Navigator. In this manning level, the Co-
Navigator is also doing the function of
Administrator.
Yellow Manning:
Used in situations where indicated by the Risk
Analysis and Bridge Manning Level Table. In
Yellow Manning, the bridge is manned by three
officers in the functions of Navigator, Co-
Navigator and Operations Director. In this
manning level, the Co-Navigator is also doing
the function of Administrator.
Red Manning:
Always used for arrivals and departures and for
other situations indicated by the Risk Analysis
and Bridge Manning Level Table. The Captain
must be on the bridge and assume one of the
following functions -- Navigator, Co-Navigator
or Operations Director.
The philosophy behind the system encourages the
Captain to assume the role of Operations Director, acting
as a leader while the team undertakes the operation. By
delegating the operational tasks, he/she demonstrates
trust in the team. This has many positive effects, such as:
enhanced learning;
readiness to actively participate in problem
solving;
enthusiasm and motivation to work;
an engaged team directly leading to increased
safety and efficiency.
As officers are entrusted with conducting the vessel, they
will be better prepared for their promotion when that
time comes. This will also increase job satisfaction,
which facilitates officers’ retention rate.
The Operations Director should monitor the workload of
each team member and take action if someone is
overloaded. With the Captain in the role of Operations
Director, he/she will have excellent opportunities to
coach and supervise -- and intervene if required. In order
to confidently take the role of Operations Director, the
Captain must know the competence of officers and also
have confidence in his own ability and competence to
lead the team from behind.
As long as there is a more senior officer in the functions
of Co-Navigator and/or Operations Director compared
with the Navigator, there is resilience in the system. If
the Captain takes the function of Navigator, the resilience
is weaker as it is always more difficult for a lower rank
to question a higher rank, particularly in cultures in
which people have a high degree of adhering to
hierarchical authority, also known as high power
distance. “Resilience is the ability to accommodate
change and absorb disturbances without crumbling,
without breaking down, without catastrophic failure.” [3]
The main task of the Administrator is to manage
elements such as alarms and phone calls – and to make
sure that the Navigator and Co-Navigator can focus on
their tasks without being distracted or disturbed.
6.3 IS THERE A NEED FOR A HELMSMAN?
There is a trend in all types of ships with sophisticated
bridge equipment not to use a helmsman. Today, it is
common to find containerships, tankers, ferries and large
cruise ships where there is never a helmsman on the
bridge. The reason is that there are numerous examples
of incidents and accidents when the helmsman has
misinterpreted an order, sometimes with dire
consequences. There are also examples of Captains and
Pilots giving an incorrect helm order with similar
consequences.
The alternative to a helmsman is a sophisticated track-
control system, which can perform accurate steering both
on straight courses and in turns. As turns are pre-
programmed and visible as a curved heading line on all
radar screens, an incorrect input can be challenged by the
bridge team and corrected before it is executed. Picture 3
below shows the dotted curved headline. When it
overlaps the red track line, it is time to execute the turn.
Picture 3.
For times when manual steering is required, normally
when the ship speed is less than 5 knots, this task is
performed by the Navigator using a follow up ‘tiller’ or
‘mini wheel’ within easy reach on the centre console. [2]

6
By eliminating the helmsman as a person, we are
reducing the complexity of the system, with fewer
agents and connections (one person less) and less
interdependencies (the helmsman can introduce
confusion).
7. BRIDGE DESIGN AND LAYOUT
“Poor bridge design and ergonomics can have
detrimental effects on human performance and increase
the incidence of human error.” [5]
To facilitate an effective working environment, the
bridge design and layout of next-generation cruise
vessels has been modified to fit the demands of the
function-based organisation.
As each function has a number of tasks associated with
it, the relevant equipment necessary to accomplish those
tasks has been placed next to the designated position.
This means, for instance, that the Navigator has primarily
next to him/her only equipment for the control of the
vessel and the monitoring of the navigation.
Furthermore, following ergonomics principles, key
equipment for vessel control (engine, rudder, thrusters,
autopilot, mini wheels, etc.) has been located in such a
way that both Navigator and Co-Navigator can easily
reach over, should the need arise during operation. This
allows an efficient function’s take-over simply by the
click of a button. Therefore, this is a bridge built around
the operator rather than the opposite. See Picture 4. [2]
Any alarm panels, internal phones and such are placed
close to where the Co-Navigator or Administrator are
performing the related tasks.
Picture 4. Bridge on new Royal Princess built in 2013.
Front: Co-Navigator – Staff Capt. Navigator – 1st
Off.
Behind: Operations Dir. – Captain, Helmsman, Pilot
Far left: Administrator – 3rd
Off.
8. TRAINING AND IMPLEMENTATION
The third recommendation from the 2007 study required
two courses to be developed around the new bridge
organisation and procedures. The first course (BRM 1)
deals with operational procedures for normal situations,
such as changing manning levels, change of watch,
effective communication, etc. The second course (BRM
2) deals with operational procedures for abnormal and
emergency situations.
To prepare the participant for the courses, pre-reading
material has been developed, which mainly consists of
the relevant procedures to be trained. Participants are
also provided with a pre-study questionnaire that must be
handed to the instructor the day the course starts. The
team of participants attending the course should be
composed of an even spread of ranks from Captain to
junior officers divided into two bridge teams of six
participants each.
In both courses the skill-based training is complemented
with relevant Human Factors’ modules such as stress,
fatigue, situation awareness and decision making. In
order to emphasize the correct behaviour of each
procedure, a video sequence is shown before the practical
application. The video, showing the correct behaviour,
makes it much easier for participants to remember and
copy this behaviour.
The leadership part focuses on moving the Captain from
being an operator in front of the team to becoming a
leader behind the team. Another module on leadership
includes coaching, where the Captain has to coach an
officer during preparation and execution of a simple
arrival operation. This creates engaged team members
with the opportunity to learn and actively participate in
the operation.
CSMART can train two bridge teams simultaneously as
there are two full mission simulators and two instructors
on each course. A dedicated operator runs the simulator
exercise with both simulator bridges in the same
exercise, making it possible for the simulator instructors
to be on the dedicated bridge closely monitoring each
bridge team. If the bridge team is making major mistakes
or showing incorrect behaviour, the instructor will pause
the exercise to correct the mistake/behaviour on the spot,
which is much more effective than doing it in the
debriefing session.
In the debriefing session, participants are asked to
describe what they were satisfied with and what they
could improve on. They are usually hard on themselves
and will describe what to improve. The instructor will
only replay situations of poor performance if this
situation is not fully understood or there is a denial.
CSMART focuses on positive learning, meaning the
replay will always include situations of correct
behaviour. The instructor may say: “Take a look at this
situation; this is how it should be done.” This approach
fully addresses the proper procedures for safe operations,
but such a constructive approach allows participants to

7
feel positive about themselves and remember what they
are learning instead of being put down and feeling
embarrassed if only negative situations are brought
forward.
The last day of the courses includes a written assessment
followed by a practical assessment in the full mission
bridge simulator. Participants are assessed on the basis of
the course objectives.
The courses conclude with an individual feedback
session between the instructor and each participant. This
session has proved to be highly appreciated both by
participants and instructors as it provides an excellent
opportunity to give honest feedback to participants and
for the participant to give feedback on the instructor.
9. WORKING WITH PILOTS
In the late 1970s I was myself trained in a pilot
organisation that favoured “on the job” training only,
without any formal methodology to assess performance.
The focus was on the number of pilotages (experience),
rather than an objective measure of technical and non-
technical performance. During pilotage the Captain often
relaxed with a cup of coffee while the pilot performed his
duties, which was seen as an indication that the Captain
trusted the pilot. In this scenario, there was no threat to
the existing professional culture, which could be passed
on generation after generation. In cases where external
training was provided, this was mainly focused on
developing individual ship handling skills, in a simulator
or in manned models. From the mid 1980s, however,
changes were slowly creeping in as the Captain and
bridge team became more involved in the pilotage as the
master/pilot information exchange was introduced.
In this day and age, pilots from a modern pilotage culture
– which includes a pursuit of knowledge and
incorporation of contemporary safety management
principles -- are growing in numbers. Pilots from such a
culture should be viewed as an additional creator of
safety together with the bridge team. To be a creator of
safety, pilots must understand that it is imperative that
he/she must share the conning intentions and work with
the bridge team.
Instead of the pilot taking over the conning there is also
another option when working with a highly trained
bridge team. Provided there is a proper voyage plan
agreed upon, the bridge team can maintain the con while
the pilot joins the Captain in a monitoring and
supervisory role. This type of set up has the advantage of
keeping the team fully engaged, with two experienced
and qualified persons over viewing ready to step in if
there would be a deviation from plan or if there is any
concern about the operation.
There are, however, still a number of pilot organizations
that champion the notion of an error-proof, one-man-
band on the bridge. These organizations do not promote
the use of Bridge Resource Management or advanced
Integrated Navigational Systems. Pilots of these
organizations lack the required training, knowledge and
skills in BRM, and in the use of Integrated Navigation
Systems (INS). In order to not create a conflict situation
on the bridge when those Pilots are onboard, most
Captains would agree to ignore sophisticated navigation
equipment, allowing a predominantly visual pilotage.
This is a not the preferred situation as it defeats the
purpose of BRM, which is the effective use all available
resources, both technical and non-technical.
The best way to enhance an effective working
relationship between bridge teams and Pilots is to train
together. In the BRM 1 course at CSMART, one full day
is devoted to working with Pilots, which is always rated
very highly. Amsterdam Pilots have been very
cooperative and have provided one Pilot for every course
conducted since 2009, which has been a great benefit to
both parties.
It is crucial for creating a good working relationship
between the Captain and the Pilot that the voyage plan,
including berthing, to be agreed upon. Some forward-
thinking Pilot organizations have published their routes
on their website to allow downloading, which facilitates
the voyage planning onboard and makes the briefing
between Captain and Pilot much easier and faster. An
efficient briefing is very important for safety, as it allows
for the Captain and Pilot to have the same understanding
of how the voyage plan will be followed. An efficient
briefing also takes on another element of importance in
situations when the Pilot is boarding close to a port
entrance or other hazards and needs to start piloting as
soon as possible.
10. ONBOARD IMPLEMENTATION
In order to consolidate the training and assist the
Captains with the onboard implementation of the new
organisation, two senior Captains were taken out of
rotations to make course follow ups. Those Captains first
had to do the Train the Trainer course followed by a
period serving as assisting instructors at the courses to
become “Coaching Captains.”
The coaching Captains were sent to each ship for a
period of three to five days to make sure that the course
objectives trained in the simulator were implemented
onboard. The work of the coaching Captains was
imperative for the successful implementation of the
function-based bridge organisation and the new
procedures. This success allowed Carnival Corporation
to implement this system in all operating lines under the
function “Fleet Captain.” Fleet Captains are taken out of
rotation for a period of two years. During this time they
visit ships to check for procedural drift and coach/mentor

8
as necessary. They periodically also serve as instructors
at CSMART.
11. CONCLUSION
Human errors are inevitable. No matter how competent
the people we employ or how much training we do,
human fallibility cannot be avoided. This is why a
resilient socio-technical system must be created to avoid
negative consequences caused by mismanagement of
errors and threats. This is the key to creating a more
advanced and higher level of system safety. Addressing
latent conditions at the workplace, such as bridge
ergonomics, complements such a system.
It is, however, not enough to impart Human Factors’
training to the officers and believe that all weaknesses
will be taken care of. First of all, officers must be
required to have a thorough understanding of the
equipment they use before they are put in charge of a
navigational watch. Second, there must be a consistent
organization, which is not solely depending on the person
in command. Third, ship-specific procedures and
checklists, which are reviewed at frequent intervals, must
be put in place.
Introducing a flexible bridge organization based on
functions with clear task allocation has created increased
work satisfaction among all officers, which leads to
improved safety and efficiency. The system also
facilitates the career development process, as officers are
allowed to take on the different functions and develop
their skills step by step. The function-based organisation
also resembles other safety-critical industries such as
Aviation and Space travel.
Having recognised the major benefits of the function-
based bridge organisation and new procedures, all 10
operating lines under Carnival Corporation have
implemented this system.
End quote:
“The foundation of all understanding of human life is
that no static maintenance of perfection is possible and it
matters little how distinguished the past. Advance or
decadence are the only choices offered to mankind. The
pure conservative is fighting against the essence of
things.”
“Adventure of Ideas,” Professor A.N. Whitehead
12. REFERENCES
1. UK HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE. “Admiralty Guide
to the Practical use of ENCs”. Edition 1, 2012.
2. LARJO, K. et al, “Practices in pilotage – Past,
Present and Future.” Accident Investigation Board,
Finland. ISBN 978-951-836-291-6, 2010.
3. DEKKER, S, Sydney Dekker on Resilience
Engineering, Youtube.com
4. REASON, J. “Managing the Risk of Organizational
Accidents, Ashgate Publishing Limited. 1997,
5. UK MCA RP545: Development of guidance for the
mitigation of human error in automated shipborne
maritime systems. 2006
6. Captain Nick Nash, FNI, Master Emerald Princess.
13. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Hans Hederstrom holds the current position of
Managing Director at Center for Simulator Maritime
Training, CSMART, part of Carnival Corporation & plc
group. His previous experience includes;
Principal Instructor & Manager at Dept. of
Shipping and Maritime Technology at Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Director & Principal Instructor at Star Cruises
Ship Simulator, Port Klang, Malaysia
Senior Maritime Pilot in Port of Gothenburg,
Sweden
Has sailed in all ranks up to Master

Function based bridge operation (03-2014)

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Function based bridge operation (03-2014) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Function based bridge operation (03-2014)