A real-time ship simulation study of the proposed design for deepening the Entrance Channel and Fishermans Channel in Miami Harbor, Florida, was made. The purpose was to determine whether deeper draft containerships could enter the harbor safely. The study showed that even with bend easements in certain critical areas, the deeper/heavier proposed ships would have difficulty entering the harbor under certain wind and tide conditions. Tidal current data for the simulation were obtained from a numerical model and were supplemented with prototype measurements. CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC) UNITS OF MEASURE... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PART I: INTRODUCTION .............................................. . 4 Miami Harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Navigation Problems... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Proposed Channel Improvements................................... 8 Scope of Simulator Study and Test Design........................ 9 PART II: DATA DEVELOPMENT .......................................... . 13 Required Data......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Description of Simulator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Validation and Data Description................................. 14 Test File. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Scene File. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Radar File... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Ship Files. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Current File. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 PART III: RESULTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Inbound Runs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Outbound Runs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Pilot Questionnaire Response Analysis........................... 28 Ship-Ship Interaction..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 PART IV: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... . 38 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 FIGURES 1-167