Effects of Different Scheduling Systems on Crew’s Situation Awareness Under Long-Term Operation Conditions

  • Hao Chen
  • Liping Pang
  • Xiaoru WanyanEmail author
  • Shuang Liu
  • Yufeng Fang
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1253)


The crew’s cognitive ability has become a critical issue in long-term marine tasks with different scheduling arrangements. The present study aims to investigate the impact of long-term operation and different scheduling systems on situation awareness (SA), one of the most important cognitive abilities. 15 male simulated crew members, randomly divided into three groups of five each, were involved in the ship simulation operation experiment for 9 days. The experimental stage of three days each was adopted as within-subject factor, while the scheduling system was set as the between-subject factor, including three kinds of 24-h schedules. SA was measured by 3D-SART subjective scale and situation present assessment technique (SPAM) in an everyday indicator-monitoring task. The results showed the stable enhancement of the subjects’ SA with the increase of the experimental stage, and significant difference of SA did not exist among the subjects under different scheduling systems. It suggests that operators have good adaptability to the different scheduling systems under long-term operation conditions.


Cognitive ability Long-term working Scheduling systems Situation awareness Offshore operation management 



This research was financially co-supported by the jointly program of National Natural Science Foundation of China and Civil Aviation Administration of China (No. U1733118), as well as Liao Ning Revitalization Talents Program (XLYC1802092).


  1. 1.
    Islam, R., Hongyang, Y.: Human factors in marine and offshore systems. Methods Chem. Process. Saf. 2, 145–167 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strand, G., Mary, A.L.: Human factors modelling in offshore drilling operations. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 43, 654–667 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noroozi, A., et al.: Effects of cold environments on human reliability assessment in offshore oil and gas facilities. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 56(5), 825–839 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferguson, S.A., et al.: The influence of circadian time and sleep dose on subjective fatigue ratings. Accid. Anal. Prev. 45, 50–54 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benchekroum, T.H., Gomes, J.O.: Resilience and situation awareness in operators’ activities during shift changeovers in nuclear power plants. In: World Congress on Ergonomics (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansen, J.H., Geving, I.H., Reinertsen, R.E.: Adaptation rate of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin and cognitive performance in offshore fleet shift workers: a field study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 83(6), 607–615 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sneddon, A., Mearns, K., Flin, R.: Stress, fatigue, situation awareness and safety in offshore drilling crews. Saf. Sci. 56, 80–88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly, T.L., et al.: Nonentrained circadian rhythms of melatonin in submariners scheduled to an 18-hour day. J. Biol. Rhythm. 14(3), 190–196 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, X.S., et al.: Shift work and chronic disease: the epidemiological evidence. Occup. Med. 61(2), 78–89 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Skalle, P., Aamodt, A., Laumann, K.: Integrating human related errors with technical errors to determine causes behind offshore accidents. Saf. Sci. 63, 179–190 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Ladan, S.B., Turan, O.: Human reliability analysis—Taxonomy and praxes of human entropy boundary conditions for marine and offshore applications. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 98(1), 43–54 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sneddon, A., Mearns, K., Flin, R.: Situation awareness and safety in offshore drill crews. Cogn. Technol. Work 8(4), 25–267 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stanton, N.A., et al.: State-of-science: situation awareness in individuals, teams and systems. Ergonomics 60(4), 449–466 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisma, Y.B., Cabrall, C.D., de Winter, J.C.: Visual sampling processes revisited: replicating and extending Senders (1983) using modern eye-tracking equipment. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 48(5), 526–540 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hao Chen
    • 1
  • Liping Pang
    • 1
  • Xiaoru Wanyan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shuang Liu
    • 1
  • Yufeng Fang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Beihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Aviation Industry Corporation of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations