Videotel Bridge Resource Management – Five Case Studies

BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Effective bridge resource management to prevent accidents and near

misses at sea involves:

x Basic knowledge and understanding without which no bridge team

can be effective.
x Planning. Reacting correctly to dangerous situations is good.
Preventing them from occurring by thinking ahead is better.
x Awareness of error chains and warning signals. Disaster rarely
strikes out of a clear blue sky. There is almost always a build up of
events.
x Teamwork. Unless all the members of a bridge team communicate
and work together effectively, no systems, procedures or technology
will prevent accidents from happening.

Basic knowledge and understanding

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

(ColRegs)

Every officer must know what the ColRegs specify about the actions his
ship must take in relation to another vessel. However, knowing what the
regulations say and being able to apply them is not always the same thing.
There are two factors which can make their application in real situations
more difficult.

x Two ships. The regulations specify what must happen when,

because of their proximity to one another, there is a potential for
collision between two ships. For example, they tell us which is the
give way ship and which the stand on ship.
But in busy waterways there are often many more than two ships
involved and officers must therefore be able to apply the regulations
even in complicated traffic situations. Much of that ability depends on
thinking ahead and anticipating the actions of other ships.

x Changing circumstances. In particular, though the regulations

specify when one ship should give way to another, they also cover
what the stand on ship should do if the ship that is supposed to give
way fails to do so. The action needed in that situation calls for fine
judgement.

Your own ship

For ships involved in long voyages, the days when crews remained
unchanged throughout the voyage are long gone. To lay the foundations for
good bridge resource management, officers coming on board an unfamiliar
ship must familiarise themselves with, and discuss with the Master and
other watch-keeping officers:

Page 1 of 6
Videotel Bridge Resource Management – Five Case Studies

x Handling characteristics, such as draft and manoeuvring data.

x Technology, such as the operation of the ARPA, echo sounder, GPS
and manual versus auto steering.
x Standing and night orders, such as when to call the Master,
manning in special circumstances, posting of lookouts and reducing
speed in restricted visibility. A checklist of the relevant orders will
make this process simpler and more robust.

Planning

This should be a mixture of the formal and the informal, written plans and
mental alertness. Planning includes:

x Formal voyage plans. Regulation 34 of SOLAS, Chapter 5 requires

all ships to have a berth-to-berth voyage plan before proceeding to
sea. Amongst its other advantages, the existence of a formal plan
allows officers to concentrate on what is happening during their
watch, rather than being distracted by reference books and tables.
There are four distinct stages to planning and achieving a safe
passage:

x Appraisal. This is the basic information gathering stage which

forms the foundation for the plan. Risks are identified and
assessed. These are balanced against commercial
considerations and the best approach to the voyage is
developed.
x Planning. The vessel’s planned track is identified, taking into
consideration factors such as margins of safety, tidal windows,
waypoints, fixing frequencies, Pilot boarding areas and
contingencies.
x Execution. Once the plan has been created, discussed and
agreed, the methods used to put it into effect must be identified,
including the best use of available resources. Last minute
modifications may be needed once the precise timing of the
passage is known.
x Monitoring. The plan must be monitored during the voyage
using soundings, bearings and so on to ensure that it is being
adhered to or, if it is not, that alterations have been made for
legitimate reasons. One of these, of course, is the need to
conform with the ColRegs.
x Preparation for planned activities. For example, rigging Pilot
ladders, preparing anchors for lowering, giving the engine room prior
notification of speed reductions and establishing fixing frequencies.
x Thinking ahead. Officers of the watch should have a clear picture of
what is likely to happen during the watch and, say, 1 hour, 15 minutes
and 5 minutes ahead. When thinking ahead, aim for:

Page 2 of 6
Videotel Bridge Resource Management – Five Case Studies

x No surprises! The calm and ordered way that experienced

officers deal with unusual situations is often explained by the
fact that they see them coming long before anyone else.
x No secrets! Effective bridge resource management depends on
sharing information.
x ‘What if’ questions. For example, ‘what if that ship ahead slows
down?’; ‘what if visibility deteriorates?’. It is important to have
alternative scenarios in mind so that we know what to do if
circumstances change.

Error chains and warning signals

Dangerous situations have a nasty habit of creeping up on us. Accident

investigations often reveal that major disasters began with a series of
events which could hardly even be described as errors – distracting phone
calls, sudden changes in weather conditions, misinterpretation of orders.

Though hindsight is more efficient than foresight, hindsight is a lot less

useful. Members of every bridge team – not just the Officer of the Watch –
must be aware of the warning signals that may cause a chain of errors
resulting in danger to the ship. In particular:

x Changes, such as weather, visibility, tide, currents, traffic, manning,

equipment failure, manual to auto steering.
x Contradictory information, such as that:
x About depth, heading and position.
x Between individuals’ opinions.
x Between what standing orders or the voyage plan says should
be happening and what is actually happening.
Between what the technology says and what members of the bridge team
can see by looking out of the window. Modern technology has made the
seafarer’s life a good deal easier, but there can be a tendency to rely on it
too much. Picking up a pair of binoculars is sometimes simpler, quicker and
more effective than struggling to acquire targets on the ARPA.

x Distractions, such as visitors, fatigue, stress and VHF or mobile

telephone calls.
x Gut feeling. It is always a mistake to ignore a nasty feeling that
something isn’t right, even when we can’t quite put our finger on what
it is.

Teamwork

A good team has clear objectives, individual team members understand

their roles, communication is open, honest and continuous, relationships
are supportive and trusting and the team improves by learning from what it
is doing. Most important of all, good teams are successful – they achieve
what they set out to do.

Page 3 of 6
Videotel Bridge Resource Management – Five Case Studies

While it is easy to describe what a good team looks like, it is a much harder
task to create one, particularly in the circumstances on board ship where
the bridge team changes from watch to watch and as officers and crew
members leave and join the ship during the voyage.

There are three main elements involved in creating a climate in which good
teamwork will flourish – informal communication, formal procedures and
learning from experience.

Informal communication

In good teams people talk to one another! In particular:

x They ask questions when they don’t understand.

x They ask one another for help when they need it.
x They offer one another support.
x They volunteer information to one another before they are asked for
it.
This type of behaviour doesn’t just happen. It has to be encouraged. New
people joining an existing team tend to keep quiet until they have worked
out for themselves or, much better, had it explained to them that they are
expected to communicate in this way.

Formal procedures

In most teams there are certain key activities and situations about which
informal communication is not just inappropriate, but can be positively
dangerous. Formal procedures for these must be laid down and understood
by everyone involved. To take an obvious example, when two ships are in
danger of colliding with one another the ColRegs specify precisely what
each must do.

There are two particular activities which bridge teams must tackle in a
formal manner – watch handover and working with a Pilot.

x Watch handovers. Three important principles of effective, safe watch

handovers are:
x Time. There should be an overlap of, typically, 10-15 minutes
between the officer coming on watch and the officer going off.
x Clarity of understanding. Both officers must be sure that the
officer coming on is clear about the ship’s status before the
officer going off leaves the bridge.
x Stable conditions. Watch handovers must not take place in
the middle of a manoeuvre.
It is essential to establish a systematic, consistent procedure for
handing over the watch from one officer to another. There is an
example of a checklist for doing so in the appendix to this guide.

Page 4 of 6
Videotel Bridge Resource Management – Five Case Studies

x Working with a Pilot. The Pilot has to be incorporated smoothly into

the bridge team in a short period of time. 1
In many ports Pilots historically join ships in positions which require
them to take the con immediately. This is not necessarily consistent
with modern bridge resource management practice. When it happens,
the bridge team still needs to ensure an exchange of information (to
quote from STCW) ‘regarding navigation procedures, local conditions
and the ship’s characteristics’. That can only be done effectively if
there is a formal process for doing so. Pilot cards supply some of this
information. There is an example in Appendix 2.
There must also be an understanding of how the Pilot will work with
the bridge team. STCW specifies that ‘the Master and/or the officer in
charge of the navigational watch shall co-operate closely with the
Pilot and maintain an accurate check on the ship’s position and
movement’. That co-operation will be based on the berth-to-berth
voyage plan, but it also relies on active communication.
Watch out for the ‘2 seats problem’. On the bridge of many modern
ships there are sometimes only two seats. At the point at which the
Pilot comes on board, these are often occupied by the Master and the
Officer of the Watch. This can create the situation in which the Pilot
finds himself physically and psychologically on the edge of the bridge
team.

Learning from experience

Some groups never seem to learn to function as teams, no matter how long
they work together. The reason is that learning from experience doesn’t just
happen. It is a systematic process which has to be consciously applied.
There are four stages:

x The experience itself. Something specific happens. It can be good

or bad, successful or unsuccessful.
x Reflection. The team think about and discuss the experience. What
happened? Who did what? What went well? What went less well?
x Generalisation. What general lessons can we draw from the
experience? What do we want to do more of next time? Less of?
Differently?
x Planning. The team use the lessons they have learned to plan for
another, similar experience.
Then they go through the four stages again.

Learning from mistakes is particularly important, but when doing so

remember that the objective is to improve the team’s performance the next
time a similar situation arises. It is not to find someone to blame. If
discussion of mistakes turns into a witch- hunt, communication will cease,
people will try to cover their backs and no-one will learn anything.

1
You may find it useful to watch Part 3 of this series ‘The Master/Pilot Relationship’

Page 5 of 6
Videotel Bridge Resource Management – Five Case Studies

Barriers to effective teamwork

There are three barriers which can often make developing an effective
bridge team harder.

x Rank. Informal communication is sometimes inhibited by the formal

structure of ranks found on board ships. Individuals can be reluctant
to call for help or to challenge a more senior officer’s mistakes.
x Certification. There can be an assumption that because an officer
joining the ship has got a Third Mate’s certificate, this means that no-
one needs to discuss what is expected of him or how the bridge team
operates on this particular ship.
x Culture. This can be a major factor on ships with officers and crew
drawn from many different nationalities. What is ‘culture’? One
authority described it as ‘software of the mind’ – the tendency of
individuals from particular groups to think, feel and act in particular
ways.
There are sometimes large and obvious differences between the
cultures of different nationalities, though we have to be careful not to
fall into the trap of cultural stereotyping. Just because a particular
group tends, on average, to react in a particular way to a particular
situation, it does not follow that every member of that group will do so.
This is a large and complex subject. Without delving too deeply into it,
those responsible for creating effective working relationships amongst
bridge teams should be conscious that, in particular, those with
different cultural backgrounds may have very different attitudes to:
x Hierarchy. Some nationalities - Danes, for example - tend to
regard differences in rank and status as much less important, or
even desirable, than do others, such as Filipinos.
x Groups. Some nationalities, such as Indonesians, tend to
identify very strongly with the groups to which they belong,
while others, such as Americans, stress the importance of
individualism.
x Uncertainty. Nationalities such as the Germans tend to prefer
operating within a framework of rules and structure, whereas
the British are more relaxed about uncertainty.
These three factors in particular affect how individuals from different
cultures can be predicted to work together in teams. Senior officers must be
aware that what may seem to them as odd or difficult behaviour may be
perfectly natural and acceptable when seen from the perspective of the
other person.

Page 6 of 6