Journal of Navigation and Port Research (한국항해항만학회지)

Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research (한국항해항만학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Implementation Techniques for the Seafarer's Human Error Assessment Model in a Merchant Ship: Practical Application to a Ship Management Company

상선 선원의 인적과실 평가 모델 구축기법: 선박관리회사 적용 실례

  • Yim, Jeong-Bin (Division of Maritime Transportation System, Mokpo Maritime University)
  • 임정빈 (목포해양대학교 해상운송시스템학부)
  • Published : 2009.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In general, seafarer's human error is considered to be the preponderant muse for the majority of maritime transportation accidents in a merchant ship. The implementation techniques for Human Error Model (HEM) to assess possible accident risk by deck officers including captain, chief officer, second mate and third mate are described in this study. The scope of this work is focused to 642 deck officers in the ship management company with 130 vessels. At first, HEM can be constructed through the statistical analysis and expert's brainstorming process with human data to 642 deck officers. Then the variables $\upsilon$ for the human factors, the evaluation level EP($\upsilon$) for $\upsilon$, the weight $\alpha$ of $\upsilon$, and the title weight $\beta$ of each deck officers can be decided. In addition, through the analysis of ship's accident history, the accident causation ratios by human error ${\gamma}_H$ and by external error ${\gamma}_B$ can be found as 0.517(51.7%) and 0.483(48.3%), respectively. The correlation coefficients to $\upsilon$ are also shown significant for a 95% confidence interval (p < 0.05) for each coefficient. And the validity of HEM is also surveyed by the analysis of normal probability distribution of risk level RL to each deck officer.

일반적으로 상선에서 해상운송 사고의 주된 원인은 원의 인적과실로 고려되고 있다. 본 논문에서는 선박에 승선 중인 선장, 1항사, 2항사 및 3항사를 포함하는 갑판사관들이 야기할 수 있는 사고 위기를 평가하기 위한 인적과실 모델(HEM)의 구축기법에 관해서 기술했다. 연구범위는 130척의 선박을 관리하는 회사에 소속된 542명의 갑판사관들을 대상으로 했다. 우선, 갑판사관들의 인적 데이터에 대한 통계적 분석과 전문가에 의한 브레인스토밍 과정을 통해서 KEM을 구축하고, 인적과실을 평가하기 위한 인적요소들의 변수 $\upsilon$와 $\upsilon$에 대한 평가등급 EP($\upsilon$) 및 가중치 $\alpha$, 갑판사관의 직책별 가중치 $\beta$ 등을 결정했다. 그리고 선박의 사고기록에 대한 통계분석 결과, 인적과실에 의한 사고원인 비율 ${\gamma}_H$와 외적과실에 의한 사고원인 비율 ${\gamma}_B$은 0.517(51.7%)과 0.483(48.3%)로 나타났다. $\upsilon$의 상관계수는 95%(p < 0.05) 신뢰구간에서 유의함을 확인하였고, 각 갑판사관의 위기수준 RL의 정규 확률분포 분석으로부터 HEM의 타당성을 검토했다.

Keywords

References

  1. 임정빈, 김대희, 장진민 (2007), "선박관리회사의 운항사고 예측 시스템 기초설계," 2007년도 한국항해항만학회 춘계학술대회(제1권), 제31권 제1호, pp.301-308
  2. 임정빈 (2008), "상선 운항사고의 양적 위기평가기법 개발," 한국항해항만학회, 제33권 제1호, pp.9-19
  3. Alistair Sutcliffe and Andreas Gregoriades (2004), "Automating Scenario Analysis of Human and Systems Reliability", Centre for HCI Design, School of Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, pp.1-20
  4. Andrew, G., John, B. C., Hal, S. S., Donald. B. R. (2004), "Bayesian Data Analysis", Second Edition, Chapman & Hall/CRC, pp.1-570
  5. DNV (2002), "Marine Risk Assessment", Qlfslwre Technology Report 2001/063, Det Norske Veritas (DNV) , pp.1-72
  6. Frances, T. H., Sarfraz, A. M., Rosemarie, C. Elizabeth, C. J., Catherine, K.C, Claude Kasten-Sportes, Jeanne, O., Barbara, A. V., Barbara, L. C., Crystal, L. M., and Ronald E. Gressl (2005), "Age-dependent incidence, time course, and consequences of thymic renewal in adults," The Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 115, No.4, pp.930-939 https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI22492
  7. IMO (2002), "Guidelines for Fonnal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Use in the IMO Rule-Making Process", MSC/Circ. 1023, MEPC/Circ.392
  8. IMO (2006), "Amendments to the Guidance on the Use of Human Element Analysing Process (HEAP) and Fonnal Safety Assessment (FSA) in the Rule-Making Process of IMO (MSC/Cir.1022-MEPC/Circ.391)", MSC-MEPC.2/ Circ.6
  9. Johan, R. van D., Jason, R. W. M., John, R. H., Thomas, A. M., and Martha, G. (2001), "A Risk Management Procedure for the Washington State Ferries," Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No.1, pp.127 -142 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.211096
  10. Judea Pearl (2008), CAUSALITY: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 8th Printing, Cambridge University Press, pp.331-358
  11. F. Xavier Martinez de Oses and Nikolaos, P. V. (2006), A Critical Assessment of Human Element Regarding Maritime Safety: Issues of Planning, Policy and Practice, TRANSMAR Research Group, Department of Nautical Science an Engineering, Technical University of Catalonia - UPC, Barcelona, Spain, pp.1-19
  12. Martha, G., Jason, M., John, R. H., Tom, M., and Rene, V. D. (2000), "Risk Modeling in Distributed, Large-Scale Systems," Revised for IEEE Systems, Man & Cybernetics: A, pp.I-37
  13. MATLAB (2008), MATLAB 7 Getting Started Guide 2008, The Mathworks, http://www.mathworks.com
  14. R. de la Campa Portelal (2005), "Maritime Casualties analysis as a Tool to Improve Research About Human Factors on Maritime Environment," Journal of Maritime Research, Vol. II. No.2, pp. 3-18
  15. Pekka, P. (2000), "Human Reliability Analysis Metlwds for Probabilistic Safety Assessment (VTT-P UBS-422) ", VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, ESPOO 2000, pp.1-63
  16. Shamus, P. S. and Michael, D. H. (2002), Blending Descriptive and Numeric Analysis in Human Reliability Design, The Dependability Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration Department of Computer Science, The University of York, U.K, pp.223-237
  17. Svein, M., Jan, A., Cesare, C., Rossana, D. B., Tor, E., Gail, S. G., Tore, H., Asher, K., Maria, L., Annika, M., Lars-Goran, N., Jerker, R., and Hubert, Z. (2006), "What people believe about memory," Memory, Vol. 14 (5), Psychology Press Ltd., pp.595-613 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210600646716
  18. THEMES (2003), Draft report on suggestion for integration of human factors in safety and environmenlnl analysis, WP 4, Deliverable D4.3, Ris${\o}$ National Laboratory, pp.I-29.
  19. Timothy, G. F. and Eirik, S. (2000), "Modeling Ship Transportation Risk," Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No.2, pp.225-244 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202022
  20. Wayne, W. B. and James, M. (2002), "Risk Management and Human Error Analysis for Recreational Bcating Safety", Marine Safety Foundation, Inc., pp.1-6

Cited by

  1. A Comparative Study on Evacuation Behavior Characteristics of Trainees according to Experience Level on board a Training Ship vol.38, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5394/KINPR.2014.38.3.233