Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety (해양환경안전학회지)

The Korean Society of Marine Environment and safety (해양환경안전학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Analysis and Identification of Seafarers' Skill-Rule-Knowledge Inherent in Maritime Accidents

  • Received : 2017.05.06
  • Accepted : 2017.05.29
  • Published : 2017.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to classify the deficient abilities of seafarers into SRK (Skill, Rule, and Knowledge) and analyze and identify the SRK by the type of accident and ship. Experimental data used the SRK cumulative frequency for 1,606 marine accident records and two-way ANOVA and t-test were used for the analysis tools. The results of two-way ANOVA showed that it is possible to identify the deficient abilities by using the cumulative frequency of SRK in both accident and ship types. As a result of the t-test, the adoption of the null hypothesis (H=0) that the mean of two pairs is equal and the rejection of the null hypothesis (H=1) were 29.2 % and 70.8 %, respectively. For the ship type, H=0 is 33.3 % and H=1 is 66.7 %. Through this study, it was found that about 70 % of the deficient abilities of seafarers inherent in maritime accidents can be identified using the proposed method.

Keywords

References

  1. Allianz(2012), Safety and Shipping 1912 2012 from Titanic to Costa Concordia. An insurer's perspective from Allianz Global Corporate & specialty (AGCS), pp. 1-33.
  2. Allianz(2014), Safety and Shipping Review 2014, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS), pp. 1-32.
  3. Allianz(2015), Safety and Shipping Review 2015, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS), pp. 1-36.
  4. Chauvin, C., J. P. Clostermann and J. M. Hoc(2008), Situation awareness and the decision-making process in a dynamic situation: avoiding collisions at sea, Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1518/155534308X284345
  5. Endsley, M. R.(1995), Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 32-64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
  6. Kaplan, S. and B. J. Garrick(1981), On the quantitative definition of risk, Risk analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x
  7. KMST(2016), Final report 2016 for the analysis of judged prejudication of Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal, Pub. reg. number 11-1192251-000012-01, pp. 1-57.
  8. KMST(2017), Web site for the Investigation and Judgement Information Portal of Maritime Causalities, http://data.kmst. go.kr/kmst/verdict/verdictAbstract/selectVerdictAbstract.do.
  9. MATLAB(2008), MATLAB and Statistical Toolbox Release 2012b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States.
  10. Park, D. J., C. Y. Jeong and J. B. Yim(2017), A Research on the Method of Mariner's SRK Behavior, Korean Society of Marine Environment and Safety, Proceeding of 2017 Joint Seminar, Mokpo, p. 59.
  11. Rasmussen, J.(1983), Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models, IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, Vol. 3, pp. 257-266.
  12. Rasmussen, J. and K. J. Vicente(1989), Coping with human errors through system design: implications for ecological interface design, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 517-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(89)90014-X
  13. Sancaktar, S.(1982), An Illustration of Matrix Formulation for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Study, Risk Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01376.x
  14. Yim J. B., W. J. Yang and H. T. Kim(2014), Maritime Accident Analysis - Maritime Accident Analysis and Prevention in the View Point of Ship Operation, Jeilkihok, Mokpo, pp. 1-391.

Cited by

  1. Comparisons of Seafarers' Perception of Maritime and Onshore Traffic Conditions vol.25, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2019.25.3.320
  2. Development of Navigator Behavior Models for the Evaluation of Collision Avoidance Behavior in the Collision-Prone Navigation Environment vol.9, pp.15, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9153114
  3. Navigators’ Errors in a Ship Collision via Simulation Experiment in South Korea vol.12, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12040529