The better alternative for alarm management
Engineers and navigators of modern ships are confronted with the drawbacks of automation in the sense that modern automation systems are able to identify all kinds of hazards and they usually report those as ‘alarm’. Ask any engineer and any navigator and he will complain about spurious alarms, unnecessarily annoying alarm sounds and the lack of support to identify what is really going on.
The consultants of PK Marine warned as early as in 1989 that systems should present their problems in a more meaningful manner. More recently, they have been involved in several IEC workgroups and in particular their work in workgroup 16 on Bridge Alert Management should be mentioned as that will have a significant impact.
Driven by IMO resolution MSC302-87, workgroup 16 is proposing new IEC legislation (IEC 62923) that will have impact initially to bridge systems that may cause alerts, and eventually to all ship systems that may cause alerts. The main properties are
- it makes a clear distinction between the various roles of the users of ship systems such that operators will receive only operational alerts,
- it demands that systems provide guidance on how an operator should respond and on what has priority
- it minimises the number of high-priority alerts and the related audible announcements
- it standardises how systems report their alerts visually and audibly
- it standardises alert-related communication interfacing
Every manufacturer and integrator of ship systems able to cause alerts should be on the alert as IEC 62923 will have impact on their designs and solutions. Also, customers of such systems should be aware as their mariners will be less prone to mistakes, that is, if systems are properly designed.
As significant contributor to the text of IEC 62923, PK Marine has in-depth knowledge of how best to implement alert management and achieve the related user benefits.