701
1 INTRODUCTION
As of 2022, vessels are responsible for about 80% of
international trade’s volume. According to [48] average
time spent in port per vessel in 2020 was only 1.00 day.
Minimizing the time spent in port and making mooring
and cargo operations shorter reduces costs of ship-
owners or charterers. On the other hand, it may result
in increased fatigue of navigators during their bridge
watch when underway [1]. The latter is an issue
addressed by the current paper.
In general, the problem of human fatigue is directly
addressed by ergonomics [13]. Ergonomics is a study
of working environments, their components, work
practices and procedures for the benefit of the worker’s
productivity, health comfort and safety [32].
Unacceptably high levels of human error, injuries or
poor quality are considered as system problems [6].
Consequently, ergonomics’ main goal is to improve
human safety, health, comfort and performance by
means of system design [8]. Thus, it is easy to observe
that ergonomics is crucial in navigation context, where,
due to its complexity, the integrated bridge can be
classified as a system of systems [36] and where human
errors can be particularly dangerous.
Analysis of marine accidents is showing that human
error percentage is decreasing in recent years but still
constitutes 60% to 80% of all causes [45]. Admittedly,
those errors are not only related to ergonomics but also
lack of knowledge, neglect of duty or
miscommunication. However, there are plenty of
factors that can increase fatigue-related human errors
on board ships. They include intensive traffic density,
port and cargo operations as well as darkness or bad
weather condition. Global crew change crisis in 2020
and 2021 caused by COVID-19 pandemics has a major
impact on seafarers’ health and wellbeing, including
such problems as fatigue, anxiety and mental health
issues [2] and decreasing number of crew on board
leads to increased workload and fatigue [3]. Minimum
Bridge Ergonomic Design: A Review
M. Stopa & R. Szłapczyński
Gdańsk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland
ABSTRACT: Human error remains the most common cause of marine incidents and it is worth emphasizing that
navigator’s performance is directly affected by ergonomic factors on the bridge. Studies regarding influence of
bridge design and work environment on the operator are rare, thus the main purpose of this paper is to fill in this
gap. Documents issued by recognized organizations, research publications and additional sources were reviewed
to check if navigators obtain enough support in this area and what should be improved. It was found that present
ergonomic guidelines for the bridge design require revision and there is a need for making the regulations more
meaningful and direct. The main documents that require reworking include Guidelines on Ergonomics Criteria
for Bridge Equipment and Layout, International Convention of Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping (STCW) as well as selected parts of SOLAS V/15 regulation.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 16
Number 4
December 2022
DOI: 10.12716/1001.16.04.11
702
Safe Manning Certificate is setting minimum standards
in this case. However, keeping only the skeleton crew
might result in reduction of safety level. Taking into
consideration that some tasks (like mooring or cargo
operations) are unavoidable and that ship crew can be
performing their duties for a few months without a
single day off, the fatigue might become a serious
problem. It affects seafarers’ ability to perform their job
effectively and safety [26] and degrades cognitive
skills, slows down reaction time, reduces vigilance and
affects decision making [46].
Implementation of new equipment including the
concept of e-Navigation is supposed to increase
navigational safety and security [50]. On the other
hand, the system’s complexity and overload of
information can have an opposite effect. Especially,
when it is combined with overreliance on aids and
electronic equipment, which reduce watch keeping
standards [12]. Safety of marine navigation is further
affected by non-technical skills of the crew, including
situation awareness, decision making and
management skills [43]. Bridge designers and
equipment manufacturers alike should therefore look
for a balance between reducing work overload and
keeping the tasks sufficiently involving for a human
operator.
A lot of works related to ergonomics or human
factor are applicable to the navigational bridge.
However, the influence of the wheelhouse design,
layout or indoor conditions on navigator’s
performance is rarely researched. Thus, main purposes
of this paper are to fill in the gap in literature and
investigate if there is still room for improvement here.
To achieve those goals it is necessary to review legal
regulations in the field of ergonomic design of the
bridge and check if navigators get enough support here
from the regulatory bodies. Following this, the
regulations and their development can be confronted
with the technological progress.
1.1 The process of navigation
Navigation can be considered a process of safe and
efficient operation of the ship at sea [34]. A simplified
model shown in Figure 1, based on Jurdziński [33],
indicates that one of the most important factors is
observation of the surroundings of the vessel.
According to Rule 5 of Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(COLREG): “every vessel shall at all times maintain a
proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all
available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full
appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision”
[19]. However, ship as a structure does not look-out,
observe surroundings and assess the situation – these
duties are carried out by a qualified officer in charge.
Neither sight nor hearing can be replaced by
technology and ergonomic design of navigational
bridge, which supports those senses, is thus essential
for watch keeping.
Figure 1. Simplified model of the process of navigation,
based on Jurdziński [33].
1.2 Bridge as a command centre
Bridge is the main command centre of the vessel [39].
Navigator’s duties, apart from those in Figure 1,
include voyage documentation, routine testing of
equipment and supervision of the works carried out on
deck. That is why there are some workstations on the
bridge with different equipment or use purpose. E.g.,
the suggested layout of wheelhouse, which is shown in
Figure 2 and can be found in MSC/Circ.982 (Guidelines
on ergonomic criteria for bridge equipment and layout)
or in ISO 8468:2007 (Ship’s bridge layout and
associated equipment – Requirements and guidelines).
Figure 2. Suggested layout of workstations on the bridge,
based on International Maritime Organization [27] and
International Organization for Standardization [32].
The workstations on the bridge have different
purposes, which are listed below:
− Workstation for navigating and manoeuvring – the
main one, should provide optimum visibility,
integrated presentation of information and
operating equipment to control and consider ship’s
movement.
− Workstation for monitoring – for permanent
monitoring of equipment and surrounding
environment from seated/standing position.
703
− Workstation for manual steering – the vessel can be
steered by a helmsman in accordance with orders
given by the navigator in command.
− Workstation for docking – it should be located on
bridge wing and allow navigator (and pilot if
applicable) observe all external and internal
information required for safe operation and
manoeuvring.
− Workstation for planning and documentation –
intended for planning ship’s operations (e.g. route
planning or filling the deck logbook during the
voyage).
− Workstation for safety – displays and operating
elements serving safety should be located here. This
might include control of internal emergency with an
access to internal or external communication related
to safety of the ship.
− Workstation for communication – designated for
operation and control of general communication
and Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
(GMDSS) equipment [27] [14].
The requirements for the field of vision from each
workstation are described in International Convention
for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter V Regulation
22, while proposed equipment for workstations can be
found in MSC/Circ.982.
2 SOURCES OF REGULATION
The IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations,
gathering 174 member states and 3 associate members
in 2021 [21]. It plays a crucial role in forming of the
international law of the sea and is the most important
link in the process of globalisation of shipping
standards and regulations [7]. In order to improve
safety, IMO has promoted adoption of conventions,
codes, recommendations etc. [47], providing the main
source of information on bridge ergonomics and
design criteria.
SOLAS was adopted in 1974 and entered into force
on 25 May 1980. Its main purpose is to determine
minimum standards for construction, equipment and
operation of vessels. Flag states are responsible for
ensuring that ships under their flags meet those
requirements [20].
International Convention of Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) from 1978 is
adopted worldwide to regulate crew operations,
medical requirements, competence standards etc. Since
STCW Convention entered into force on 28 April 1984,
a lot of amendments have been adopted [22]. Similar
situation takes place with SOLAS Convention, which
allows keeping the documents up to date [20].
Another international convention, Maritime Labour
Convention (MLC) was established in 2006 by ILO.
This is a massive boost for seafarers, as the convention
sets minimum working and living standards onboard
ships under flags of ratifying countries. As of now, the
MLC Convention has been signed by 98 member states
which covers about 91% of world shipping [17].
In 2018, SOLAS and STCW each had 164 contracting
governments and each covered over 99% of merchant
fleet around the World in terms of gross tonnage [38].
The other reason of worldwide acceptance of IMO
documents, except from increasing safety and
unification of standards and rules, is simply the
difficulties that can be experienced by ships of States,
which are not Parties of international conventions.
Standards for ship safety, after being set by IMO,
are applied by national maritime authorities and
classification societies. They also offer assistance to
maritime industry and regulatory bodies regarding
safety and pollution prevention basing on the
knowledge, experience and technology. Classification
Societies can publish and apply their own rules and
verify regulations on behalf of flag Administrations.
The biggest and most reputable of those organizations
can become members of IACS.
2.1 Changes in bridge equipment
The minimum standards for the navigational
equipment and systems are described in the SOLAS,
Chapter V, Regulation 19. Required equipment varies
depending on the engagement on international
voyages, year of built, type of ship or gross tonnage
[23]. The requirements for compulsory navigational
devices carried on board are revised by IMO in form of
amendments to SOLAS.
Since 2000, the navigators experienced major
changes due to new bridge equipment. The first of
them was Automatic Identification System (AIS),
which was made mandatory by SOLAS. Due to
terrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001,
the deadline of implementation was revised and
shortened to 31st December 2004 [41]. SOLAS was also
amended by IMO in 2009, regarding introduction of
Bridge Navigational Watch Alarm System (BNWAS).
Since then, all new ships of 150 GT and upwards, all
new passenger vessels constructed after 1st July 2011
shall be equipped with this system. Existing ships were
to introduce BNWAS before certain deadline dates
dependent on the gross tonnage [28]. The same can be
observed for ECDIS, as the changes of requirements
were adopted in the same year and document as
BNWAS. The introduction started from passenger
ships of 500 GT and upwards and tankers of 3000 GT
and upwards constructed on or after 1st July 2012 [28].
On 1st July 2018 the transitional period of
implementation expired and since this time all vessels
of 3000 GT or more involved in international voyages
must be fitted with an official ECDIS system.
Nowadays it is common to have ECDIS only and no
paper charts on board. Modern ships do not have
chartrooms, so back-up ECDIS fitted on the
workstation for monitoring can be considered a part of
the workstation for navigating and manoeuvring and
may serve as additional conning station [14]. The
introduction of new mandatory navigational
equipment since the adoption of MSC/Circ.982 is
summarised in Figure 3.
704
Figure 3. Introduction of new mandatory navigational
equipment since 2000.
3 ERGONOMICS IN REGULATIONS
From the regulatory perspective, the design of the
bridge should support the operations, according to
SOLAS Chapter V, Regulation 15 [23]. Apart from
those mandatory SOLAS requirements for bridge
arrangement or equipment, navigation bridge is
additionally supported by non-mandatory standards
and guidelines [25]. This includes MSC/Circ.982:
Guidelines on ergonomic criteria for bridge equipment
and layout, which was issued by the Maritime Safety
Committee in 2000. The intention of this document was
to assist designers to perform sufficient ergonomic
design of the bridge, as described in Regulation 15 of
chapter V of the SOLAS Convention [27]. These
supplemental standards are essential, as the rules are
very general and state that the design should:
− promote the effective and safe bridge resource
management,
− prevent or minimize excessive or unnecessary
work,
− facilitate tasks to be performed by bridge team and
pilot in making full appraisal of the situation and in
safe navigation of the ship in all operational
conditions etc.
Other guidelines in the topic of bridge design
provided by IMO in forms of circulars are:
− SN.1/Circ.265: Guidelines on the application of
SOLAS V/15 to INS, IBS and bridge design,
− SN.1/Circ.288: Guidelines for bridge equipment and
systems, their arrangement and integration (BES).
There is an ISO standard 8468:2007 (Ship’s bridge
layout and associated equipment – Requirements and
guidelines) providing information on human factor in
bridge design, e.g. specify functional requirements for
bridge and workstation arrangement or the working
environment. The guidelines are suggested to be used
as methods and solutions for meeting the functional
requirements. Although most of the guidelines
included in MSC/Circ.982 directly match this
document, ISO standards are non-mandatory, unless
stated otherwise in regulations [31].
MLC Convention from 2006 provides some more
regulations. According to this document, work
environment should promote health and occupational
safety in living, working and training [18]. In the
Convention itself, there is mentioned a problem of
exposure to noises and vibrations. Those and other
harmful factors like lighting, UV lights, extreme
temperatures or radiation are better explained in the
Guidelines for implementing the occupational safety
and health provisions of the Maritime Labour
Convention, 2006, issued by ILO in 2015. Those
guidelines, apart from dealing with exposure to work
environment, address also ergonomic hazards or
fatigue as other forms of risks on-board [16].
STCW Convention provides standards regarding
training and watchkeeping. In the minimum standard
of competence for deck officers there is no direct
requirement related to keeping proper ergonomics
while performing duties on the bridge. There are
references and examples of areas that should be given
great care, e.g. taking over the watch. To promote safe
and effective take-over of duties, STCW contain a
requirement concerning the adjustment to the light
conditions, particularly to night vision. However,
STCW Convention does not specify neither the exact
period, which is sufficient for adapting to darkness, nor
the means to evaluate night vision [51]. Moreover, the
officer shall ensure that all members of the watch are
fully capable to take over the duties and relieve the
previous watchkeepers [24], not being supported by
any suggested methods of verification of compliance.
Above-mentioned non-mandatory standard ISO 8468,
which was revised in 2007, provides additional
guidelines, including using red goggles for 5-15
minutes before a watch to support adapting to
darkness (this is not mentioned neither in
MSC/Circ.982 nor in other reviewed documents issued
by IMO).
IACS issued a recommendation containing the
application of above-mentioned SOLAS Regulation
V/15 in 2007 [14]. The document was later corrected in
2009 and 2011. Some classification societies promote
application of ergonomics and human factor in design
by issuing their own guidelines or rules.
3.1 Guidelines: deeper look into standards
To show the technological progress in recent years, the
appendix 3 of MSC/Circ.982 was analysed. This
appendix contains standards dealing with ergonomic
criteria for bridge equipment and layout as of 2000.
They are grouped in table in the Appendix 1 to this
paper.
The analysis can be summed as follows:
− ISO 14612 was established in 1999 to strengthen ISO
8468 [11], however it has been replaced by ISO
8468:2007 [32].
− The guidelines for workstations and suggested
equipment on them was included in the MSC/Circ.
603 Annex 2 from 1993, but it was overtaken by time
by the MSC/Circ.982 itself [25].
− In addition to general requirements for GMDSS
equipment and electronic navigational aids set out
in resolution A.694(17), the new display
performance standards were described by
resolution MSC.191(79) adopted in 2004.
− Alarm management performance standards
described in resolution A.694 (17) were extended by
resolution MSC.302(87) adopted in 2010 [29].
− The IEC 61209 titled Operational and performance
requirements, methods of testing and required test
results for Integrated bridge systems (IBS) was
withdrawn in 2013 [15].
− Revised performance standards for Integrated
Navigation Systems (INS) were introduced in 2007
by resolution MSC.252(83)
− The relevant requirement for work environment
was introduced to SOLAS in 2012. According to
705
adopted amendments, newly built vessels should
be constructed in accordance with Code of noise
levels on board ships. The code sets noise level
limits and is mandatory for new built ships for
spaces on board including navigational spaces [30].
Guidelines for noise on the bridge provided in
MSC/Circ.982 are general and do not specify
maximum allowed noise volume. It is however
stated that it should not interfere with necessary
communication, cause fatigue or injury and
degrade overall system effectiveness.
4 DISCUSSION
Ship crews are working in a difficult and stressful
environment [10]. To avoid the problem of work
overload, a bridge team can be temporarily enlarged
[37], however this is hard to apply in practice.
Therefore, There are some possible methods of fatigue
reduction, including properly applied ergonomics [44].
Ergonomic design supports also minimum manning of
ships [42], which is essential during crew change crisis
and when personnel on board is reduced to skeleton
crew.
As was stated in 1989 in by Larsen [35], bridge
ergonomics is one of the areas where navigational
safety can be enhanced. However, the content of
SOLAS Regulation V/15 related to bridge design,
remains very general and does not specify methods of
compliance. As noticed by Grech and Lemon [5], it is
desired to point out strict responsibility of authorities
for execution of bridge ergonomic design.
Unfortunately, not all flag states fulfil their duties
concerning the compliance with international
conventions [40], which makes implementation of non-
mandatory ergonomic standards to the bridges
unlikely. Specifically, questions have been raised about
whether this Guideline adequately addresses the gaps
within the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Regulation
V/15, which deals with bridge ergonomics. One aspect
under consideration is whether a link should be made
between the Guideline and SOLAS regulation V/15
with the possibility of including a reference to the new
Guideline in a footnote to SOLAS regulation V/15.
While other SOLAS Regulations place strict
requirements on contracting Governments (for
example), Regulation V/15 seems to be missing any
actionable responsibility associated with bridge
design-related issues.
4.1 Tackling the problem by design or by training
Navigator’s work is affected by multiple ergonomic
factors. This include body posture and movement,
environmental factors, information and operation or
the work organization [8]. The purpose of bridge
ergonomics is not only to support health and
occupational safety, but also to ensure safety of the
whole ship, e.g. when determining risk of collision and
monitoring the effectiveness of collision avoidance
action. With respect to COLREGS, the proper lookout
should be maintained all of the time. Therefore
navigator should be provided with a good view from
seated position, proper lighting and low noise level.
Ship designers are very often limited in their work
by cost cutting, structural stresses or limited space. At
the same time, they are expected to address the needs
of vessel crews, even though they have little to no
contact with the latter and are unable to predict their
work routines. Poorly fitted equipment in combination
with low usability causes a long-term problem for the
operators [5]. In the beginning of 2020, the average of
age of global fleet was 21.29 years old in terms of
number of ships [49]. Considering that the ergonomic
guidelines issued as MSC/Circ.982 were adopted in
2000, it is unlikely that bridges were designed with
ergonomics in mind before this date. These ships
however still operate worldwide without any
additional support for navigators. This results in an
increased workload in comparison to bridges with
ergonomic work environment, especially considering
that the standards of competence and operators’
licenses are the same in both cases, as are the minimum
manning requirements.
Seafarers’ fatigue can be reduced by introducing
ergonomic standards as well as professional education
[4]. If a bridge design does not support ergonomic
principles (e.g. on ships built before the adoption of
guidelines from year 2000), than at least a proper
training should be offered to back-up officers.
Otherwise, the situation might lead to poor ergonomic
awareness among seafarers and result in bad habits
and inefficient use of provided equipment.
Training in ergonomics might not only teach
navigators healthy routines but also provide support in
controlling ergonomic factors on the bridge and in
taking collision-avoidance decisions in case of quick
change in weather conditions. A lot of emphasis has
been put on teaching the use of navigational
equipment, however, it should be highlighted that the
whole bridge environment, including ergonomic
factors, is important for performing the duties and is
controlled by the officer in charge. Even if the whole
area of wheelhouse is provided with flexible light
adjustment and individual dimming functions, those
devices will be operated by a human navigator, who
must know when and how to use them in order to
improve his performance.
5 CONCLUSION
All parties involved in shipping try nowadays to
follow the “safety first” watchword. Ergonomic factors
have direct influence on the duties of navigator,
including proper lookout. Taking into account the
number of accidents involving human error, the
problem remains unsolved and there is clearly need for
further research and more restrictive regulations.
Ergonomic related problems are already known to
the maritime industry and they are tackled by
implementation of standards, rules or guidelines,
which are often unclear or too general. Cooperation of
all key actors is thus required for solving the problem
and reducing its negative influence on navigators.
Since ship designers usually lack navigation
background, they need to be supported by standards
and guidelines, all of which should be revised
frequently.
706
This paper has shown that there is a regulatory gap
for the work environment on the bridge. With the sole
exception of noise limitation since 2012, there are only
recommendations, guidelines and other non-
mandatory documents on bridge ergonomics.
Unfortunately, they are not strong enough to enforce
compliance with them. Such gap exists also regarding
the seafarers training covered by STCW, which does
not support controlling the work environment, e.g.
proper adjustment of lighting and illumination on the
wheelhouse.
Also, ships older than 20 years are a significant
percentage of worldwide fleet. Guidelines on
Ergonomics Criteria for Bridge Equipment and Layout
(MSC/Circ.982) were adopted in 2000 and up till now
there were no revisions. In 2020 the average age of the
global fleet was 21.29 years, which is a problem, as old
ships’ bridges were not designed to comply with the
present ergonomic guidelines. Thus, additional actions
by IMO might be necessary to support ergonomics,
including extra training. Further study is required to
assess the real scale of this problem, but there is
definitely a need for improvement: among others,
SOLAS V/15 regulation could be more direct, having in
mind bridge operators.
REFERENCES
[1] Allen, P., Wadsworth, E. and Smith, A.: The prevention
and management of seafarers’ fatigue: a review.
International Maritime Health, vol. 58, no. 1-4, pp. 167-
177 (2007).
[2] Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty: Safety and
Shipping Review 2021. An annual review of trends and
developments in shipping losses and safety (2021).
[3] Arslan, O. and Er, I.D.: Effects of Fatigue on Navigation
Officers and SWOT Analyze for Reducing Fatigue
Related Human Errors on Board. TransNav, the
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of
Sea Transportation, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 345–349 (2007).
[4] Bielić, T. and Zec, D.: Influence of Ship Technology and
Work Organization on Fatigue. Proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium on Maritime Health, Rijeka,
Croatia, 10-15 April 2005, pp. 34–45 (2005).
[5] Bjørneseth, F.B.: Improving safety on board ships through
better bridge design. The Ergonomist, vol. 532 (2014).
[6] Bridger, R.,: Introduction to Ergonomics. CRC Press
(2008). doi: 10.1201/b12640.
[7] Chircop, A.: The International Maritime Organization.
The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, eds. D.
Rothwell, A.O. Elferink, K. Scott and T. Stephens. Oxford
University Press (2015). doi:
10.1093/law/9780198715481.003.0019.
[8] Dul, J. and Weerdmeester, B.: Ergonomics for Beginners:
a quick reference guide. CRC Press (2008). doi:
10.1201/9781420077520.
[9] Grech, M. and Lemon, N.: Human Centred Design for
Enhanced Navigation Systems: Shifting the Focus on
User Needs. Proceedings of the PACIFIC 15: International
Maritime Conference, Sidney, Australia, 6-8 October 2015
(2015).
[10] Guo, F., Yang, Z., Blanco Davis, E., Khalique, A. and
Bury, A.: Does Being Human Cause Human Errors?
Consideration of Human-Centred Design in Ship Bridge
Design. Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive
Engineering, Proceedings of the AHFE 2021 Virtual
Conferences on Neuroergonomics and Cognitive
Engineering, Industrial Cognitive Ergonomics and
Engineering Psychology, and Cognitive Computing and
Internet of Things, New York, USA, 25-29 July 2021, pp.
302-309 (2021). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-80285-1_36.
[11] Ha, W.-J., Jong, J.-Y., Lee, H.-K., Park, Y.-S. and Park, J.-
S.: The Design and Arrangement of Coastal Ship ′ s
Bridge on the Basis of Ergonomic Concept. Journal of
Navigation and Port Research, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 599-604
(2003). doi: 10.5394/KINPR.2003.27.6.599.
[12] Hadnett, E.: A Bridge Too Far?. Journal of Navigation,
vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 283–289 (2008). doi:
10.1017/S0373463307004675.
[13] Hägg, G., Melin, B. and Kadefors, R.: Applications in
Ergonomics. Electromyography: Physiology,
Engineering, and Noninvasive Applications, eds. R.
Merletti and P. Parker, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, pp. 343–363 (2004). doi:
10.1002/0471678384.ch13.
[14] International Association of Classification Societies:
IACS Recommendation No.95 for the Application of
SOLAS Regulation V/15 – Bridge Design, Equipment.
Arrangement and Procedures (BDEAP) (2007).
[15] International Electrotechnical Commission:
https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/19343 (Accessed: Jan.
27, 2022).
[16] International Labour Organization: Guidelines for
implementing the occupational safety and health
provisions of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006
(2016).
[17] International Labour Organization:
https://ilo.org/global/standards/maritime-labour-
convention/ (Accessed: Jan. 15, 2022).
[18] International Labour Organization: Maritime Labour
Convention (2006).
[19] International Maritime Organization: Convention on the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(COLREG) (1972).
[20] International Maritime Organization:
https://imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/Internatio
nal-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at- Sea-(SOLAS),-
1974.aspx (Accessed: Jan. 11, 2022).
[21] International Maritime Organization:
https://imo.org/en/About/Membership/Pages/MemberSt
ates.aspx (Accessed: Jan. 19, 2022).
[22] International Maritime Organization:
https://imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/STC
W-Convention.aspx (Accessed: Jan. 18, 2022).
[23] International Maritime Organization: International
Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as
amended (1974).
[24] International Maritime Organization: International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended,
including the 1995 and 2010 Manila Amendments (1978).
[25] International Maritime Organization: MSC.1/Circ.1371:
Amendments to the List of codes, recommendations,
guidelines and other safety- and security-related non-
mandatory instruments (2012).
[26] International Maritime Organization: MSC.1/Circ.1598:
Guidelines on fatigue (2019).
[27] International Maritime Organization: MSC/Circ.982:
Guidelines on Ergonomic Criteria for Bridge Equipment
and Layout (2000).
[28] International Maritime Organization: Resolution
MSC.282(86): Adoption of Amendments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea,
1974, as amended (2009).
[29] International Maritime Organization: Resolution
MSC.302(87): Adoption of Performance Standards for
Bridge Alert Management (2010).
[30] International Maritime Organization: Resolution
MSC.338(91): Amendments to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended
(2012).
[31] International Organization for Standardization:
https://iso.org/sites/ConsumersStandards/1_standards.ht
ml (Accessed: Jan. 23, 2022).
707
[32] International Organization for Standardization: ISO
8468:2007: Ships and marine technology — Ship’s bridge
layout and associated equipment — Requirements and
guidelines (2007).
[33] Jurdziński, M.: Changing the Model of Maritime
Navigation. TransNav, the International Journal on
Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, vol.
12, no. 1, pp. 35–41 (2018). doi: 10.12716/1001.12.01.03.
[34] Kopacz, Z., Morgaś, W. and Urbański, J.: The Changes in
Maritime Navigation and the Competences of
Navigators. Journal of Navigation, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 73–
83 (2004). doi: 10.1017/S0373463303002522.
[35] Larsen, P.: WATCH ONE--TRIALS AND RESULTS.
Proceedings of the Seminar on the Minimum Bridge and
Flight Deck Crew Requirements for the Safe Operation of
Ships and Aircraft. London, UK, 6 December 1989 (1989).
[36] Lund, M.S., Gulland, J.E., Hareide, O.S., Jøsok, ∅. and
Weum, K.O.C.: Integrity of Integrated Navigation
Systems. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on
Communications and Network Security (CNS), Beijing,
China, 30 May-1 June 2018, 1–5 (2018). doi:
10.1109/CNS.2018.8433151.
[37] Maglić, L., Zec, D. and Frančić, V:Model of the Adaptive
Information System on a Navigational Bridge. Journal of
Navigation, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1247–1260 (2016). doi:
doi:10.1017/S0373463316000266.
[38] Manuel, M.E. and Baumler, R.: The Evolution of Seafarer
Education and Training in International Law. Maritime
Law in Motion, eds. P.K. Mukherjee, M.Q. Mejia, Jr., J. Xu.
Springer (2020). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_22.
[39] Masroeri, A.: Integrated Design of Bridge Deck Based on
Ergonomics Rules towards One Man Control Bridge.
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, vol. 13,
pp. 1–10 (2016). doi: 10.9734/BJAST/2016/21887.
[40] Mitroussi, K.: Quality in shipping: IMO’s role and
problems of implementation. Disaster Prevention and
Management, vol. 13, no.1, pp. 50–58, (2004). doi:
10.1108/09653560410521698.
[41] Norris, A.: AIS Implementation – Success or Failure?.
Journal of Navigation, vol. 60, no. 1, pp, 1–10, (2007). doi:
10.1017/S0373463307004031.
[42] Punte, P. and Post, W.: Ergonomic Ship Bridge Design
Supports Minimum Manning. WIT Transactions on the
Built Environment, vol. 53 (2001).
[43] Röttger, S. and Krey, H.: Experimental study on the
effects of a single simulator-based bridge resource
management unit on attitudes, behaviour and
performance. Journal of Navigation, vol. 74, no. 5, pp.
1127–1141 (2021). doi: 10.1017/S0373463321000436.
[44] Sajiyo, M. and Prasnowo, M.A.: Redesign of work
environment with ergonomics intervention to reduce
fatigue. International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research, vol. 12, no, 7, pp. 1237-1243 (2017).
[45] Sánchez-Beaskoetxea, J., Basterretxea-Iribar, I., Sotés, I.
and Machado, M. de las M.M.: Human error in marine
accidents: Is the crew normally to blame?. Maritime
Transport Research, vol. 2, no. 100016 (2021). doi:
10.1016/j.martra.2021.100016.
[46] Strauch, B.: Investigating Fatigue in Marine Accident
Investigations. Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 3, pp. 3115–
3122 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.859.
[47] Tarełko, W.: Origins of Ship Safety Requirements
Formulated by International Maritime Organization.
Procedia Engineering, vol. 45, pp. 847–856 (2012). doi:
10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.249.
[48] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development:
https://unctad.org/topic/transport-and-trade-
logistics/review-of-maritime-transport (Accessed: Jan. 22,
2022).
[49] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development:
Review of Maritime Transport 2020. United Nations
(2021).
[50] Weintrit, A., Pietraszkiewicz, J., Piotrzkowski, W. and
Tycholiz, W.: e-Navigating in highly-constrained waters:
a case study of the Vistula Lagoon. Journal of Navigation,
vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 505–514 (2021). doi:
10.1017/S0373463320000661.
[51] Wynn, T., Howarth, P.A. and Kunze, B.R.: Night-time
lookout duty: The role of ambient light levels and dark
adaptation. Journal of Navigation, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 589–
602 (2012). doi: 10.1017/S0373463312000288.
