The Navy's transformation strategy is leading to dramatic changes in ships, weapons, doctrine, and manning in the surface force. While high-speed vessels, long-standoff-range weapons, and networked command and control have tremendous advantages, they require a high degree of operator expertise.
To maintain proficiency, new skills for complex systems have to be mastered and exercised frequently. Simulators are ideal platforms for meeting this training challenge-as long as they are seen as part of a training system that includes a disciplined curriculum and instructors who are subject matter experts. Training planners should not assume automatically that new high-technology training devices have the potential to displace well-established, disciplined training.
Development of Simulator Complexes
Evolution of shiphandling simulators over the past 20 years or so is a case in point. Because ship handling is a critical seamanship skill, there always has been a need for a way to learn and practice it without putting ships at risk. While Naval Academy midshipman learned some of these skills on yard patrol craft, the closest thing ship drivers had to a training simulators prior to the 1980s were remotecontrolled models or small sit-in models driven around pools or ponds. Regardless of the effectiveness of these training devices, they were not widely (or regularly) available; thus, only a few officers got to use them.
In the early 1980s, the Navy started sending prospective commanding officers of deep-draft ships to some of the first simulators. At the time, the idea that ship handling could be taught in a simulator was somewhat controversial in certain circles. But the fact remains: without simulators, many officers would not get the "stick-time" necessary to gain proficiency and have the opportunity to make mistakes they can benefit from without damaging ships or careers.
Positive results from early simulator training, combined with technological advances in computers and projection systems, made the time ripe for the Navy to pursue a broader investment in simulation. In 1987, Navy officers in the sea-duty pipeline started training on ship simulators on a regular basis. A contract was awarded to Marine Safety International (MSI) to provide this training as part of the curriculum at the Surface Warfare Officers School in Newport, Rhode Island. In 1994 and 1998, MSI opened ship simulator complexes in; San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia, under contracts with the Pacific and Atlantic Fleet surface force commands. The fundamental purpose of these complexes was to provide a way for officers to learn and grow proficient in the art and science of using engines and rudders, lines, wind, current, and tugs.
The Navy took a requirements-driven approach to building the first simulator training complexes. Instead of making a direct investment in capital and manpower, they wrote contract specifications for the tasks expected of simulators, the curriculum to be taught, and the qualifications of instructors. This method gave the Navy:
* Cutting-edge training technology without capital expenditure
* A highly qualified and stable training staff that would have been difficult to achieve and maintain at a Navy-owned training site
* Flexibility in upgrades and improvements beyond those available if the Navy merely bought equipment
Subject Matter Experts as Instructors
As private enterprises, simulator complexes also provided training to merchant mariners. Over time, the instructors' exposure to the broad range of expertise brought by merchant mariners and naval officers created a collegial atmosphere and made these centers a reliable source of basic and advanced knowledge. Not surprisingly, as ship simulator training evolved, the value added by expert instructors came to be at least as important-if not moreso-than the benefits of using simulators. In addition to the knowledge and experience acquired on the job, the typical instructor had 15-20 years of experience at sea, multiple ship commands, and, in many cases, held the Coast Guard's unlimited master's license.
Diverse Training
Until the late 1990s, simulator centers stressed proficiency training in shiphandling skills, such as mooring to and getting underway from piers, channel transits, underway replenishment, and formation maneuvers. In recent years, simulator use has evolved to encompass risk management, situational awareness, decision making, and teamwork. The evolution has been driven by several key factors:
* The International Maritime Organization (IMO)'s issuance of Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) 95, which increased and formalized requirements in the merchant marine
* A Navy-wide safety stand-down in 2000 called to review a series of mishaps that occurred the preceding year
* Upgraded bridge technology, including automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA) radar and electronic chart display information systems (ECDIS)
Included in the IMO 's STCW was a requirement for merchant masters and mates to be certified in bridge resource management (BRM). This training consists of a three-to-five-day course of seminars, case studies, and simulator exercises aimed at improving passage planning, situational awareness, risk management, communications and decision making. The Navy's safety review found that the typical ship mishap reflected deficiencies in the same areas that BRM training covers, which made it apparent that adapting it to the Navy's needs might offer solutions.
Starting in 2001, officers attending the course for prospective commanding officers and executive officers at Surface Warfare Officers School begun taking the three-day BRM course at MSI's site in Newport. In the same year, ships' bridge teams began taking BRM courses at Norfolk and San Diego, and they have become a routine part of predeployment cycles. Further, the culture of BRM and its emphasis on risk assessment, disciplined decision making, teamwork, and communications has been embedded thoroughly in all training conducted at simulator complexes.
New Bridge Technology
Advances in bridge technology also argue for a disciplined, systems approach to training. Recently the Navy has accelerated development and deployment of ARPA radar and ECDIS on ships' bridges. Although the advanced technology will make smaller bridge teams more capable, each team member will have to be a qualified expert. The formal radar, ARPA, and ECDIS courses required by the STCW code for merchant watch slanders are certificated courses-i.e., the course content and instructors are certified by the Coast Guard.
Experienced mariners teach these valuable courses. They go beyond mere operation to integrate rules of the road, doctrinal standards, risk management, and decision making. It is appropriate that Navy training initiatives, such as Project Excel, appear to be moving toward expert-level courses, documentation of qualifications, and periodic tests and certifications based on the STCW standard. In addition to offering training courses that span an officer's seagoing career, simulator complexes can play a useful and cost-effective role in providing consistent test and qualification platforms.
New Operational Patterns
The way the Navy operates is also being transformed. If it has not happened already, fixed-length deployments and .structured interdeployment training cycles may soon be a thing of the past. The necessities of a smaller fleet combined with widening mission scope have led to innovations such as deploying ships for long periods and swapping crews. Simulators can meet many of the relevant needs of this new paradigm, from training in specialized missions to maintaining seamanship skills in off-cycle crews.
New Simulation Technology
Today's technology has enabled simulators to move aboard ship-embedded as operational equipment or placed on desks. With their promise of wide availability, they will fill an important but limited training need. They are excellent for basic skills training, proficiency training, and pre-exercise rehearsals. Absent expert instruction or mentoring, however, there is a risk they will be used merely to exercise existing skills or, in the worst case, to reinforce bad habits.
Artificial intelligence may effectively replace an instructor for very basic and structured training-it cannot add insight and understanding relative to the art of ship handling and complex decision making in high-risk environments. Balance is essential: a mix of small-scale and embedded systems, along with more advanced systems focused on higher-level skills taught to a common standard.
Future Requirements
As Navy watch officers adapt to new technologies such as high-speed craft, cockpit bridges, and integrated ARPA and electronic navigation systems, they will find that many functions are performed by automatic devices. Eliminating the human element in any task is a two-edged sword. On one hand, human variability and error are replaced by machine predictability and reliability; on the other, human intellect is replaced by possible mechanical glitches.
On a high-technology bridge, watch keeping will become more procedural, requiring quicker decisions and precise communications. Simulators are ideal for training to this environment. Similar to flight simulators, where every instrument and control is exactly like the actual aircraft cockpit, future ship simulators can become less generic and more special purpose.
Conclusions
Emerging uses for simulators will add even more emphasis to the need for stable and expert instructor bases and technological and curriculum adaptability. Transformational training can refer only to different kinds of training devices and different kinds of training paths. It can never refer to transforming the way humans learn.
Ship handling, collision avoidance, navigation, and related proficiency at the highest level demand decision-making skills. Students learn best by emulating good decision makers. We cannot "transform away" the need for competent instructors. The Navy must take a systems approach to simulation training, ensuring that training requirements-not training devices-drive ship simulation. The best investments will be rooted in the fundamental goal to keep ships safe, afloat, and available for their missions.
Captain Boyce commanded two ships and an amphibious squadron. He is the director of Marine Safety International's shiphandling center in Norfolk, Virginia.