This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
In recent years, as ships have grown dramatically in displacement and have become more difficult to maneuver, and while costs of ship repairs have skyrocketed, the Navy has not adequately exploited simulation for the training of those who must maneuver ships or supervise pilots while they do so. As a result of this neglect, avoidable collisions and groundings continue to occur.
Junior surface warfare officers sometimes have the opportunity to maneuver a sailboat or a small craft early in their training process. Shipboard officers devote long hours to gain a small amount of experience in maneuvering their own ships, while prospective executive and commanding officers sometimes maneuver a small model in a pond by radio control. Other than on-the-job training, these experiences represent the major part of a surface warfare officer’s shiphandling training today.
Some line commanders in the fleet believe that the average level of shiphandling skill and experience in the Navy is low. This condition is not helped by the fact that the Navy cannot spare ships day after day for general shiphandling training. Also, it is a rare occurrence when a commanding officer lets his most junior shiphandler take the ship into port.
Discussions with commanding officers, squadron commanders, and type commanders concerning general shiphandling skills consistently yield the following points:
►Training time at sea is limited and also expensive.
►Officers experience long intervals between sea assignments.
►New, larger ships with single props, controllable-pitch props, and/or large sonar domes are difficult to maneuver.
►The probability of damage and the cost of repairs have increased in recent years.
► Many South American ports have no pilots, and, many times, pilots in European and African ports are unreliable.
►Dispersed battle groups have few opportunities for close-interval shiphandling experience.
► Experience levels are low and are not improving.
One or more ship control simulator training centers could be cost-effective in providing formal training to supplement on-the-job training for shiphandlers and ship control teams. Further, general ship control simulators could be funded and operated by the private sector as is currently done for business aircraft and merchant marine companies. Before discussing this concept further, a brief description of the Navy’s first step toward use of full mission ship simulators serves to illustrate the possibilities.
Since July 1980, MarineSafety International (MSI) has been teaching a shiphandling simulator course for naval officers. (MSI is a subsidiary of FlightSafety International, a professional training organization with more than 35 years of simulator training experience.) The MSI training center in New York City uses two unique types of simulators to conduct the shiphandling course. One is a full- mission ship simulator, and the other consists of two interactive restricted visibility bridge (RVB) simulators. The cost of these simulators is approximately $12 million.
The shiphandling simulator training course is designed to provide naval officers with individualized refresher training in piloting a deep-draft vessel in close
quarters. The course is designed to a commodate up to ten officers in a c that lasts eight hours a day for five (*a^e A maximum of four officers are on ship simulator bridge at a time; the ot are in debriefing, or RVB simulators _ The overriding concept that g°'J this training is that of maneuvering det sion making. The training allows the c ning officer to exercise his judgment
the safe maneuvering of a ship
the ac" i-eoinf?
training has direct application to tual maneuvering of an ocean-g1 , Navy ship—whether in clear or restric visibility—and lets one practice decis making under simulated conditions wn ^ have, in the past, caused groundings collisions. ^
The training is not just what can accomplished in each simulator, but takes into account the maneuvering 0 ship through evolutions which are
ularly dangerous: poor visibility, nv
a landfall, navigating in dense
traffic
0min- tells
that these conditions are involved in 111
working in a restricted channel, con ^ alongside a berth, etc. History tells^(
Navy ship casualties.
viden1
The validity of this training is evl j when one understands that the safe 8 proper maneuvering of a ship depen ^ upon knowledge of—and expert, with—a ship’s handling characterise ^ While maneuvering decisions ,TlUst^
Any collisions or groundings that may befall this “ship” will cause no casualties or damage. This control trainer could be a prototype for a network of such systems funded and operated by the private sector for the Navy.
carried
andth °Ut throu§h issue of orders recte 'Manipulation of controls, the cor- ter ^^Maneuvering of a ship is more a mat- 'han app'yin8 knowledge and experience Using learned psychomotor skills. cour$e present shiphandling simulator eXeSe.Por prospective commanding and devei’tlVe officers (PCOs/PXOs) was aL °ped by MarineSafety instructors
aloi
s "i response to a three-month fol- °U aT C*uery Provide suggestions based eC at-sea experience. Surfac beiiev tlCers wb° have taken the course
fan
or other geographic area.
Sch ® w''h Surface Warfare Officer Trai°° ant^ Chief of Naval Technical of tJ|ln8 Personnel. To date, 19 sessions njate,e c°urse have been held. Approxi- Senio^ attendees have been
"tan / av'at'on officers going on to com- 'iais 3 ^eeP'draft ship. Close technical Sch00lJ ^as been maintained with the PCO grarn° 'n Newport to coordinate the pro- evaliS *'ac^ attending officer provides an tj0ns ‘,l lon °f the course and his sugges- eVal °r 'Miprovement. These inputs are Ulema’ anc* improvements are imple- lettep ■ w^cnever feasible. In addition •ow-i
- piuviuc auggcauuna uascu
p ^ at~sea experience. Surface war-
KfanVe 'hat its benefits are excellent. the m °* PCO alumni have said that of the°St beneficial and worthwhile part theseven-month training program is j; 'Phandling simulator course. trai . 40-hour course consists of 17 lng modules. A training module is
made up of a pertinent theory review, pre-exercise briefing, simulator exercise, and postexercise evaluation. Topics generally covered are:
► Ship familiarization—hard turns,
crash stops, acceleration with turns, slow speed maneuvers, zigzags, Williamson turns, and slaloms to give officers a feel for the ship response
► Rules of the road—crossing traffic, meeting and overtaking situations, multiple threats, night, day, in fog, etc., to practice applying rules of the road and making maneuvering decisions
► Harbor approaches and entrances—- various types of harbors, piloting plans, picking up pilot, transiting harbor and berthing, various conditions of wind, tide, current, visibility, equipment malfunctions, and emergencies
► River transits—in shallow, restricted waterways to build experience in maintaining speed and position control, meeting and passing other vessels, handling forces and moments generated by interaction and bank effects
► Open-sea maneuvering—rendezvous at night or in fog, joining formations, station-keeping, underway replenishment at night, etc.
► Berthing and unberthing—in various winds and currents, with and without tugs, including the use of thrusters and anchors
► Captain to the bridge—mechanical failures at the worst possible times, communication breakdowns, and decision making under stress
The exercises are conducted in either the full mission ship simulator or in the two RVBs. The ship simulator consists of a ship’s bridge which contains the controls and indicators found on board a typical Navy ship. The conning officer looks out over the ship’s bow upon a dynamic visual scene which changes in response to his maneuvers.
Signals from the helm and throttle are transmitted to a computer which contains a mathematical model of the ship being simulated. This model takes the aerodynamics and hydrodynamics of the particular vessel into account and responds to maneuvering commands accordingly. The computer also contains a math model of the harbor or other body of water in which the ship is operating. It includes the bottom contours, bank and channel effects, currents, tides, winds, and other factors which will affect ship motion.
Steering and speed orders from the bridge are put into the computer models, and the outputs drive a multicamera TV probe in direction, velocity, and acceleration. The TV probe is servo-driven over a three-dimensional model of the selected harbor or gaming area. Output from the TV probe is amplified and projected onto a screen surrounding the ship simulator bridge. A view of approximately 150° forward and 40° over the stem is provided.
External inputs are sent to the computer from the instructor’s console to simulate visibility, tug and anchor forces, and malfunctions. The ship’s radar is coordinated with the visual scene, including moving traffic. Typical very high-frequency and intraship communications are available to the bridge team.
Other techniques can generate the visual scene, such as point lights (night only), shadows, or computer-generated imagery (CGI). In the latter approach, the visual scene is generated by computer- graphics techniques and projected onto a screen or TV monitor. This approach to scene generation provides the most flexibility, but lacks the realism of the threedimensional model approach. Current state-of-the-art of CGI systems is limited by computer speed and size, current software techniques, and projection problems. Rapid progress is being made in these areas, and/future ship simulators likely will be able to use advanced CGI techniques for the visual display.
The RVB simulators contain the navigation, control, and communications equipment normally found on a ship’s bridge; they also have directional sound simulation, but lack a visual scene. All maneuvering is done from radar plots. The RVBs are equipped with various types of automated radar plotting aids. This equipment is required on board tankers operating in U. S. waters, and is currently being evaluated for large Navy ships.
The PCO course at MarineSafety has been improved by feedback from trainees, as well as new simulator software and hardware developments. To demonstrate the applicability of more specific simulator training for surface officers, MSI designed and tested an Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7)-class response model, and constructed a simple scale model of the Mayport Naval Base. Other ship types, naval bases, or harbors can be easily generated.
Another improvement to the course resulted from indications by past attendees that they needed more instruction and practice in rules of the road. As a result, an interactive learning program for rules of the road testing and teaching has been developed. The officer works at his own pace, using a personal computer and display terminal. Initially, a short program teaches him how to interact with the computer. Then, he is given a test on his
defense projects, the concept of one orn1^ shiphandling simulators being opera ^ for the Navy by a professional train' - organization would appear to be via
knowledge of the rules of the road. Wrong answers are indicated immediately, and the correct answer is presented with an explanation. If he scores less than 90% on the test, he begins a tutorial exercise in that category of the rules. He is retested and, upon passing, goes on to the next category. Reactions of officers exposed to the program have been extremely positive.
Currently under investigation is the desirability and potential for the training of additional categories of officers, including those at the junior and department head surface warfare officer levels and additional surface warfare PCOs/ PXOs. This training would require courses and exercises designed for specific experience levels, from basic to the most advanced. The courses would use computer models of additional combatant ships and service craft, including those with twin screws and auxiliary power units. Special exercises and effects, such as Mediterranean-style mooring and mooring to a buoy, could be presented. Ports used most frequently by Navy ships would be modeled to provide port familiarization and to augment piloting experience. An adjunct to these additional courses would be computer-aided personnel qualification standards instruction and testing, and an augmentation for the accomplishment of practical factors.
Seven-days-a-week availability could also provide Naval Reserve personnel with shiphandling training on weekends and during active duty tours.
In keeping with its approach to aircraft pilot training, MarineSafety is willing to establish one or more ship’s simulator training centers for the Navy’s exclusive use. The centers would be owned by the contractor, and operated by MarineSafety and Seacor under Navy direction, with training being provided on a contract basis. Under this approach, which has been successfully employed by Flight- Safety for more than 30 years, the contractor would be responsible for providing a simulator center that meets the Navy’s training requirements.
The risks involved in the design, integration, and acceptance testing of the simulator system would be borne by the facility contractor. As with other FSI/ MSI training centers, the client’s requirements must be satisfied or the facility will not be used. Which is the better motivator for a well-designed, well-maintained, up-to-date simulator—thousands of
pages of parts and procedures documentation, or a commercial service which might not be used if the customer (in this case, the Navy) is not satisfied?
Funding for the purchase of such facilities necessary to accomplish the expanded, exclusive, Navy training dis
cussed here would probably cost nl0 than $20 million—an almost insurmou11 able problem in today’s tight-budget en vironment. Even when put into the prl grammed objectives memoranda higher priority items become overrid'c considerations, and the line item s " from outyear to outyear into the ne ^ arriving future. Usually the project kept alive with continuing reseat which eats up funds that could be use address new requirements. . j
Considering these factors, combine with the current administration’s thrus involve private capital investment in
Captain Latham retired in 1980 after a 38-year c ^ he served in five ships, and commanded DcS jn_ Squadrons 12 and 24. His shore assignment ^ ^ eluded tours in OpNav and as a project manag^ Naval Sea Systems Command. He received h,s in naval science from the Navy Postgraduate i>c and attended advanced nuclear power school rently, he is employed by Systems Engineering ciates Corporation (SEACOR).
Mr. Garrigan earned his B.S. in physics from ^ phi University, and a master’s degree from ^ land University. He has been involved with 1 (
sign and use of marine training simulators lor ^ six years, and is currently the director of Pr(t development for MarineSafety International-
Damage Control Primer
By Rear Admiral Frederick C. Johnson, U. S. Navy
fittings, fixtures, and appurtenances
dur^
sub'
nec
stances: In addition, safeguard those
in priority, cleaning out, disposing of, and prop1
erfy
Unsolicited advice is usually worth the price paid. Let’s hope that the following is an exception to the rule.
We are engaged in a variety of damage control (DC), engineering, and shipboard safety programs; most of our effort is devoted to crash program corrective casualty control actions. But a balance is needed between preventive and corrective actions. We need to encourage preventive measures fleetwide in order to attain the level of readiness desired. This philosophy, if pushed diligently, would raise the level of readiness more than any other single program, because it is equally applicable to all ships. The recommended program consists of the systematic correction of 11 categories of common shipboard deficiencies which preclude the attainment of good engineering practices and a safe, combat-ready ship. These preventive steps should be included in any program developed in support of shipboard readiness. If a ship’s commander were to take the following steps and sustain the effort, most shipboard examinations and inspections would be a snap:
Eliminate old dirt: Old dirt is embedded dirt, grime, corrosion, verdigris, etc., which has been around so long that one is accustomed to its presence and oblivious to the multitude of sins it covers. Deep, intense, serious removal of old dirt and critical inspection of all systems and structures will—or should—reveal the presence of many of the following conditions, thereby indicating the sequence of action needed. While at it, check the accuracy of all damage control compartment check-off lists, all DC firefighting, and emergency equipment for presence and operational readiness, and the integrity of all DC fittings.
Eliminate electrical problems: Electricity kills, starts fires, initiates explosions, and causes a host of other life-threatening problems. Unfortunately, electricity is an absolute requisite in today’s Navy. Hazard or not, we have to live with it. The first step, then, is to make all dangerous or marginal electrical
safe-
Second, safeguard operator and machin (and ensure the continuity of vital si- vices) by operating and maintaining trical systems within their design li|Tlljj Other electrical system problems sh‘lU be corrected according to need; m®3 while, strict compliance with approp11 safety precautions and tag-out procei is mandatory.
Eliminate undesirable explosive
essary for ship’s combat missions. In1111, diate elimination of unwanted substanc which are explosive, or produce P°te^ ially explosive liquids or gases, should ^ an obviously high-priority action. Yet frequently see numerous violations of1 basic practice. ,.
Eliminate projectile hazards: Imnie ate elimination of any item which c^ become a projectile hazard to persoitne j equipment, stores, or structure she11 equal the reduction of explosive haza ' This is done in two ways-1