Understanding of sailing rule based on COLREGs: Comparison of navigator survey and automated collision-avoidance algorithm

The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) comprises rules to prevent collisions at sea and is based on the qualitative rules and ordinary practice of seamen. However, because the criteria of the sailing rule interpretation are different, the problem of misunderstanding occurs owing to the difference in the interpretation between navigators and collision-avoidance algorithm designers. Therefore, this study aims to clarify the collision situations by understanding in the sailing rule interpretation of COLREGs. To identify the understanding of collision situations, we surveyed the navigators' understanding of collision situations and reviewed the collision-avoidance algorithms used in recent studies. The survey results were analyzed based on head-on and crossing (HC) and crossing and overtaking (OC) situations. Results showed that navigators were unsure about whether the HC situation sailing rule should be applied to incoming vessels from the 008 degrees and whether the overtaking or crossing situation should be applied to coming vessels at 160 degrees. In OC situations, as the angle increased from 130 degrees, it became difficult for navigators to interpret the navigation rules. A notable disparity emerged between the navigators' understanding and the automated collision-avoidance algorithms. Moreover, it was confirmed that practical navigators exhibited divergent interpretations of these regulations. This study contributes to provide an understanding of COLREGs sailing rules based on the understanding of navigators and researchers.

Automated summary

This study aims to clarify the interpretation of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) based on the understanding of navigators and researchers. The study found that there is uncertainty and disparity in the understanding of certain navigation rules among navigators and between navigators and automated collision-avoidance algorithms. Differences in interpretation also exist among practical navigators.