商船甲板日志记录的比较分析

İdris Turna, O. Öztürk
{"title":"商船甲板日志记录的比较分析","authors":"İdris Turna, O. Öztürk","doi":"10.1080/18366503.2020.1844113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In many studies involving historical and climatological subjects, it is known that deck log records are used as a major source. The deck log books have also appeared as one of the key sources of marine accident investigations. Recently, many international conventions impose obligations for different types of records. It is seen that record requirements do not come from a single written source. As a result, different applications and deficiencies arise. Keeping incomplete records is reflected as a deficiency in PSC inspection reports, and even in some cases, it leads to the detention of ships. The aim of this study is to collect the deck-log recording requirements from different sources, classify them under main titles and compare their distribution by a quantitative approach. Recording requirements were obtained from SOLAS, MARPOL, ILO, MLC, COLREG, P&I, and Flag states, a total of 135 record examples were collected for different stages of ship operation. One unanticipated finding was that SOLAS Chapter 5 and ICS Bridge Procedures Guide are not a sufficient guide for up-to-date deck log recording requirements. The study provides a systematic analysis of recording standards, unlike previous studies that use deck recordings only as data sources.","PeriodicalId":37179,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs","volume":"20 1","pages":"43 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative analysis of deck log records of merchant ships\",\"authors\":\"İdris Turna, O. Öztürk\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/18366503.2020.1844113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In many studies involving historical and climatological subjects, it is known that deck log records are used as a major source. The deck log books have also appeared as one of the key sources of marine accident investigations. Recently, many international conventions impose obligations for different types of records. It is seen that record requirements do not come from a single written source. As a result, different applications and deficiencies arise. Keeping incomplete records is reflected as a deficiency in PSC inspection reports, and even in some cases, it leads to the detention of ships. The aim of this study is to collect the deck-log recording requirements from different sources, classify them under main titles and compare their distribution by a quantitative approach. Recording requirements were obtained from SOLAS, MARPOL, ILO, MLC, COLREG, P&I, and Flag states, a total of 135 record examples were collected for different stages of ship operation. One unanticipated finding was that SOLAS Chapter 5 and ICS Bridge Procedures Guide are not a sufficient guide for up-to-date deck log recording requirements. The study provides a systematic analysis of recording standards, unlike previous studies that use deck recordings only as data sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"43 - 60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2020.1844113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2020.1844113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在许多涉及历史和气候学主题的研究中,众所周知,甲板日志记录被用作主要来源。甲板日志也成为海上事故调查的重要资料之一。最近,许多国际公约对不同类型的记录规定了义务。可见,记录要求并非来自单一的书面来源。因此,出现了不同的应用和不足。保留不完整的记录反映为PSC检查报告中的缺陷,甚至在某些情况下,它导致船舶被扣留。本研究的目的是收集不同来源的甲板日志记录需求,将其分类为主要标题,并通过定量方法比较其分布。记录要求来自SOLAS、MARPOL、ILO、MLC、COLREG、P&I和船旗国,共收集了船舶运行不同阶段的135个记录示例。一个意想不到的发现是,SOLAS第5章和ICS驾驶台程序指南不足以指导最新的甲板日志记录要求。该研究提供了记录标准的系统分析,不像以前的研究只使用甲板记录作为数据来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative analysis of deck log records of merchant ships
ABSTRACT In many studies involving historical and climatological subjects, it is known that deck log records are used as a major source. The deck log books have also appeared as one of the key sources of marine accident investigations. Recently, many international conventions impose obligations for different types of records. It is seen that record requirements do not come from a single written source. As a result, different applications and deficiencies arise. Keeping incomplete records is reflected as a deficiency in PSC inspection reports, and even in some cases, it leads to the detention of ships. The aim of this study is to collect the deck-log recording requirements from different sources, classify them under main titles and compare their distribution by a quantitative approach. Recording requirements were obtained from SOLAS, MARPOL, ILO, MLC, COLREG, P&I, and Flag states, a total of 135 record examples were collected for different stages of ship operation. One unanticipated finding was that SOLAS Chapter 5 and ICS Bridge Procedures Guide are not a sufficient guide for up-to-date deck log recording requirements. The study provides a systematic analysis of recording standards, unlike previous studies that use deck recordings only as data sources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs
Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信