SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 3

Analysis of the risks in simulator-based maritime accident examination processes under Fuzzy extended AHP technique

Bulanık genişletilmiş AHP tekniği altında simülatör tabanlı deniz kazası inceleme süreçlerindeki risklerin analizi

Ahmet Lütfi Tunçel(ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2306-6996
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thus, seafarers and other maritime professionals will have their awareness of the ways in which maritime accidents happen and potential causes of accidents increased through a technology-driven application.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Simulator-based maritime accident investigations make a significant contribution to enhancing maritime safety.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, performing such studies is quite difficult and require the successful management of comprehensive preparation, scenario implementation, and analysis processes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, seafarers and other maritime professionals will have their awareness of the ways in which maritime accidents happen and potential causes of accidents increased through a technology-driven application.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Risk factor analysis · Fuzzy-AHP · Quadratic Mean Method

Abstract

Simulator-based maritime accident investigations make a significant contribution to enhancing maritime safety. However, performing such studies is quite difficult and require the successful management of comprehensive preparation, scenario implementation, and analysis processes. In this context, many different risk factors must be overcome throughout the process. This study investigates the risk factors that hinder the effective and successful implementation of full mission bridge simulator based-maritime accident investigation studies. Potential risks were weighted using the Fuzzy Extended AHP technique backed by Quadratic Mean Method, and the most critical risk factors were identified. Furthermore, regulatory and preventive activities aimed at overcoming these risk factors are discussed. The outputs of the research will contribute to the more effective and realistic implementations of simulator-based accident analysis studies and other shipboard operations related training programs. Thus, seafarers and other maritime professionals will have their awareness of the ways in which maritime accidents happen and potential causes of accidents increased through a technology-driven application.

Özet

Simülatör tabanlı deniz kazası araştırmaları, deniz emniyetinin artırılmasına önemli katkı sağlamaktadır. Bununla birlikte, bu tür çalışmaların yürütülmesi oldukça zordur ve kapsamlı hazırlık, senaryo uygulama ve analiz süreçlerinin başarılı bir şekilde yönetilmesini gerektirir. Bu bağlamda, süreç boyunca birçok farklı risk faktörünün üstesinden gelinmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışma, tam donanımlı köprü üstü simülatörü destekli deniz kazası araştırma çalışmalarının etkili ve başarılı bir şekilde uygulanmasını engelleyen risk faktörlerini araştırmaktadır. Potansiyel riskler, Kareli Ortalama Yöntemi ile desteklenen Bulanık Genişletilmiş AHP tekniği kullanılarak ağırlıklandırılmış ve en kritik risk faktörleri belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, bu risk faktörlerinin üstesinden gelmeyi amaçlayan düzenleyici ve önleyici faaliyetler ele alınmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçları, simülatör tabanlı kaza analizi çalışmalarının ve diğer gemi operasyonlarıyla ilgili eğitim programlarının daha etkili ve gerçekçi bir şekilde uygulanmasına katkıda bulunacaktır. Böylece, denizciler ve diğer denizcilik profesyonelleri, teknoloji odaklı bir uygulama aracılığıyla deniz kazalarının nasıl meydana geldiği ve kazaların potansiyel nedenleri konusunda farkındalıklarını artıracaklardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tunçel, A. L. (2026). Analysis of the risks in simulator-based maritime accident examination processes under Fuzzy extended AHP technique. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences, Volume: 12 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.52998/trjmms.1896241

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (91)

  1. Abbasbandy, S., Hajjari, T. (2009). A new approach for ranking of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Computers & mathematics with applications, 57(3): 413-419. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.090
  2. Aguarón, J., Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European journal of operational research, 147(1): 137-145. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00255-2
  3. Akyuz, E. (2016). Quantitative human error assessment during abandon ship procedures in maritime transportation. Ocean engineering, 120, 21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.05.017
  4. Akyuz, E., Arslan, O., Turan, O. (2020). Application of fuzzy logic to fault tree and event tree analysis of the risk for cargo liquefaction on board ship. Applied Ocean Research, 101, 102238. doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2020.102238
  5. Akyuz, E., Celik, E. (2018). A quantitative risk analysis by using interval type-2 fuzzy FMEA approach: the case of oil spill. Maritime Policy & Management, 45(8): 979-994. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2018.1520401
  6. Arici, S.S., Akyuz, E., Arslan, O. (2020). Application of fuzzy bow-tie risk analysis to maritime transportation: The case of ship collision during the STS operation. Ocean Engineering, 217, 107960. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107960
  7. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) (2024). ATSB Transport Safety Report Marine Occurrence Investigation (Defined) MO-2022-005 Final report – 26 July 2024. Canberra: ATSB.
  8. Ayağ, Z., Özdemir, R.G. (2006). A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, 17: 179-190. doi: 10.1007/s10845-005-6635-1
  9. Aydin, M., Uğurlu, Ö., Boran, M. (2022). Assessment of human error contribution to maritime pilot transfer operation under HFACS-PV and SLIM approach. Ocean Engineering, 266, 112830. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112830
  10. Bedir, N., Özder, E.H., Eren, T. (2016). Course selection with AHP & PROMETHEE methods for post graduate students: An application in Kirikkale University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. In MATEC Web of Conferences, 68: 1-7. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/20166820004
  11. Bolat, P., Kayişoğlu, G., Güneş, E., Kızılay, F.E., Özsöğüt, S. (2020). Weighting key factors for port congestion by AHP method. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 8(4): 252-273. doi: 10.5505/jems.2020.64426
  12. Buckley, J.J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17: 233-247. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
  13. Büyüközkan, G., Havle, C.A., Feyzioğlu, O. (2021). An integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology for digital transformation strategy analysis in airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 97: 102142. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102142
  14. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Menichini, T. (2013). Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual Capital assets: An application to the ICT service industry. Expert Systems with applications, 40(9): 3747-3755. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.081
  15. Canımoğlu, R., Yıldırım, U., Demirci, S.M.E. (2025). Analysis of Contact Accidents Onboard Ships Assisted by Maritime Pilots. Journal of Naval Sciences and Engineering, 21(1), 73-96. doi: 10.56850/jnse.1641797
  16. Canımoğlu, R., Yıldırım, U., İnegöl, G.M. (2021). Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 9(1): 51-63. doi: 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
  17. Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J.P., Langard, B. (2013). Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006
  18. Celik, M., Er, I.D., Ozok, A.F. (2009). Application of fuzzy extended AHP methodology on shipping registry selection: The case of Turkish maritime industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36: 190-198. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.09.004
  19. Chang, D.Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95: 649-655. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
  20. Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 35(4): 417-431. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2005.08.004
  21. Chu, P., Liu, J.K.H. (2002). Note on consistency ratio. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 35(9-10): 1077-1080. doi: 10.1016/S0895-7177(02)00072-9
  22. de FSM Russo, R., Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: A systematic review of literature. Procedia computer science, 55: 1123-1132. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
  23. Dong, J., Wan, S., Chen, S.M. (2021). Fuzzy best-worst method based on triangular fuzzy numbers for multi-criteria decision-making. Information Sciences, 547, 1080-1104. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.09.014
  24. Erdem, P., Akyuz, E. (2021). An interval type-2 fuzzy SLIM approach to predict human error in maritime transportation. Ocean engineering, 232, 109161. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109161
  25. Fu, S., Yan, X., Zhang, D., Li, C., Zio, E. (2016). Framework for the quantitative assessment of the risk of leakage from LNG-fueled vessels by an event tree-CFD. Journal of loss prevention in the process industries, 43: 42-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.04.008
  26. Fullér, R. (1991). On product-sum of triangular fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 41(1): 83-87. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(91)90158-M
  27. Galieriková, A. (2019). The human factor and maritime safety. Transportation research procedia, 40, 1319-1326. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.183
  28. Garg, H. (2018). Some arithmetic operations on the generalized sigmoidal fuzzy numbers and its application. Granular computing, 3(1): 9-25. doi: 10.1007/s41066-017-0052-7
  29. Göksu, A., Güngör, İ. (2008). Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Application of University Preference Ranking. [Bulanık analitik hiyerarşik proses ve üniversite tercih sıralamasinda uygulanması]. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 13(3): 1-26.
  30. Gu, X., Zhu, Q. (2006). Fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making method based on eigenvector of fuzzy attribute evaluation space. Decision support systems, 41(2): 400-410. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2004.08.001
  31. Hanzu-Pazara, R., Barsan, E., Arsenie, P., Chiotoroiu, L., Raicu, G. (2008). Reducing of maritime accidents caused by human factors using simulators in training process. Journal of Maritime Research, 5(1): 3-18.
  32. Hontvedt, M. (2015). Professional vision in simulated environments—Examining professional maritime pilots' performance of work tasks in a full-mission ship simulator. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 7: 71-84. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.07.003
  33. Hontvedt, M., Arnseth, H.C. (2013). On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8: 89-112. doi: 10.1007/s11412-013-9166-3
  34. Jensen, S., Lützen, M., Mikkelsen, L.L., Rasmussen, H.B., Pedersen, P.V., Schamby, P. (2018). Energy-efficient operational training in a ship bridge simulator. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171: 175-183. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.026
  35. Jiang, M., Lu, J., Yang, Z., Li, J. (2020). Risk analysis of maritime accidents along the main route of the Maritime Silk Road: a Bayesian network approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 47(6), 815-832. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2020.1730010
  36. Kang, L., Lu, Z., Meng, Q., Gao, S., Wang, F. (2019). Maritime simulator based determination of minimum DCPA and TCPA in head-on ship-to-ship collision avoidance in confined waters. Transportmetrica A: transport science, 15(2): 1124-1144. doi: 10.1080/23249935.2019.1567617
  37. Karakul, A.K. (2020). Selection of Renewable Energy Source Using Fuzzy AHP Method [Bulanık Ahp Yöntemi İle Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynağı Seçimi]. Bingol University Journal of Social Sciences Institute (BUSBED), 19: 127-150. doi: 10.29029/busbed.640162
  38. Koponen, J. (2015). Reducing Risks of Arctic Operations with Ice Simulator. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 9(3): 385-390. doi: 10.12716/1001.09.03.11
  39. Kuzu, A.C., Akyuz, E., Arslan, O. (2019). Application of fuzzy fault tree analysis (FFTA) to maritime industry: a risk analysing of ship mooring operation. Ocean Engineering, 179: 128-134. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.03.029
  40. Kwong, C.K., Bai, H. (2003). Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Transactions, 35(7): 619-626. doi: 10.1080/07408170304355
  41. Lavasani, S.M., Zendegani, A., Celik, M. (2015a). An extension to Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (FFTA) application in petrochemical process industry. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 93: 75-88. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2014.05.001
  42. Lama-Carballo, F.J., López-López, M.N., Salgado-Don, A., Pérez-Canosa, J.M. (2026). A Novel Methodology and Modelling for the Calculation of the Ship’s Pivot Point Making Use of a Full-Mission Bridge Simulator. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 14, 539. doi: 10.3390/jmse14060539
  43. Lavasani, S.M., Ramzali, N., Sabzalipour, F., Akyuz, E. (2015b). Utilisation of Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (FFTA) for quantified risk analysis of leakage in abandoned oil and natural-gas wells. Ocean Engineering, 108: 729-737. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.09.008
  44. Liu, Y., Eckert, C.M., Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert systems with applications, 161, 113738. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738
  45. Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). Marine Accident Investigation Branch reports. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports. Access Date: 19.03.2026.
  46. Mittal, K., Jain, A., Vaisla, K.S., Castillo, O., Kacprzyk, J. (2020). A comprehensive review on type 2 fuzzy logic applications: Past, present and future. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 95: 103916. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103916
  47. Mollaoglu, M., Bucak, U., Demirel, H. (2019). A quantitative analysis of the factors that may cause occupational accidents at ports. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 7(4): 294-303. doi: 10.5505/jems.2019.15238
  48. Nilsson, R., Lützhöft, M., Garling, T. (2008). Fairway Navigation-Observing Safety-Related Performance in a Bridge Simulator. TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety od Sea Transportation, 2(1): 17-21.
  49. Pan, N.F. (2008). Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Automation in construction, 17(8): 958-965. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2008.03.005
  50. Papalexandrou, M.A., Pilavachi, P.A., Chatzimouratidis, A.I. (2008). Evaluation of liquid bio-fuels using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 86(5): 360-374. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2008.03.003
  51. Piantanakulchai, M., Saengkhao, N. (2003, October). Evaluation of alternatives in transportation planning using multi-stakeholders multi-objectives AHP modeling. In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for transportation studies (Vol. 4, No. 1-2, pp. 1613-1628). Tokyo, Japan: Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies.
  52. Raiyan, A., Das, S., Islam, M.R. (2017). Event tree analysis of marine accidents in Bangladesh. Procedia engineering, 194: 276-283. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.146
  53. Ronca, V., Uflaz, E., Turan, O., Bantan, H., MacKinnon, S.N., Lommi, A.,. Borghini, G. (2023). Neurophysiological assessment of an innovative maritime safety system in terms of ship operators’ mental workload, stress, and attention in the full mission bridge simulator. Brain Sciences, 13(9): 1319. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13091319
  54. Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48: 9-26. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
  55. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G. (2013). Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Second Edition, Volume:195, New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  56. Senčila, V., Zažeckis, R., Jankauskas, A., Eitutis, R. (2020). The use of a full mission bridge simulator ensuring navigational safety during the Klaipeda seaport development. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 14(2): 417-424. doi: 10.12716/1001.14.02.20
  57. Seçme, N.Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS. Expert systems with applications, 36(9): 11699-11709. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.013
  58. Senol, Y.E., Sahin, B. (2016). A novel real-time continuous fuzzy fault tree analysis (RC-FFTA) model for dynamic environment. Ocean Engineering, 127: 70-81. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.09.035
  59. Senol, Y.E., Seyhan, A. (2024). A novel machine-learning based prediction model for ship manoeuvring emissions by using bridge simulator. Ocean Engineering, 291, 116411. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.116411
  60. Şenol, Y.E. (2020). Development of a dynamic navigational risk assessment model. (Doctoral dissertation). Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology, Istanbul.
  61. Shaverdi, M., Heshmati, M.R., Ramezani, I. (2014). Application of fuzzy AHP approach for financial performance evaluation of Iranian petrochemical sector. Procedia Computer Science, 31: 995-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.352
  62. Sokukcu, M., Sakar, C. (2022). Risk analysis of collision accidents during underway STS berthing maneuver through integrating fault tree analysis (FTA) into Bayesian network (BN). Applied Ocean Research, 126, 103290. doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2022.103290
  63. Sotiralis, P., Louzis, K., Ventikos, N.P. (2019). The role of ship inspections in maritime accidents: An analysis of risk using the bow-tie approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of risk and reliability, 233(1), 58-70. doi: 10.1177/1748006X18776078
  64. Tolga, A.C., Parlak, I.B., Castillo, O. (2020). Finite-interval-valued Type-2 Gaussian fuzzy numbers applied to fuzzy TODIM in a healthcare problem. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 87, 103352. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103352
  65. Torfi, F., Farahani, R.Z., Rezapour, S. (2010). Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Applied soft computing, 10(2): 520-528. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.021
  66. Transas (2014). Transas Navigational Simulators. Transas MIP Ltd. Available at: https://www.iti.edu.pa/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/NTPRO5000_Leaflet-prev.pdf
  67. Tsai, K.Y., Fang, C.C. (2025). Analysis of Real-Time Ship Manoeuvring Simulation with a Ship Collision Avoidance E-Navigation Aid System. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 100669. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2025.100669
  68. Tunçel, A.L., Arslan, Ö., Akyüz, E. (2023). An Application of Fuzzy AHP Using Quadratic Mean Method: Case Study of ENC Preparation Process for Intended Voyages. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 11(1): 56-66. doi: 10.4274/jems.2023.05902
  69. Uflaz, E., Akyuz, E., Arslan, O., Gardoni, P., Turan, O., Aydin, M. (2023). Analysing human error contribution to ship collision risk in congested waters under the evidential reasoning SPAR-H extended fault tree analysis. Ocean Engineering, 287: 115758. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115758
  70. Uflaz, E. (2023). Simulator-Based Evaluation Of Human Response In Emergencies. (Doctoral dissertation). Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School. Istanbul.
  71. Uğurlu, Ö. (2016). Analysis of fire and explosion accidents occurring in tankers transporting hazardous cargoes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 55: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2016.06.006
  72. Uğurlu, Ö., Köse, E., Yıldırım, U., Yüksekyıldız, E. (2015). Marine accident analysis for collision and grounding in oil tanker using FTA method. Maritime Policy & Management, 42(2): 163-185. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2013.856524
  73. Uğurlu, Ö., Yıldız, S., Loughney, S., Wang, J. (2018). Modified human factor analysis and classification system for passenger vessel accidents (HFACS-PV). Ocean Engineering, 161, 47-61. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.04.086
  74. Ung, S.T. (2015). A weighted CREAM model for maritime human reliability analysis. Safety science, 72: 144-152. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.08.012
  75. Ung, S.T. (2019). Evaluation of human error contribution to oil tanker collision using fault tree analysis and modified fuzzy Bayesian Network based CREAM. Ocean Engineering, 179: 159-172. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.03.031
  76. Üzgün, T. (2006). Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. Master Thesis. Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul.
  77. Vahidnia, M.H., Alesheikh, A., Alimohammadi, A., Bassiri, A. (2008). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process in GIS application. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 37(B2): 593-596.
  78. Wahid, A., Jinca, M.Y., Rachman, T., Malisan, J. (2023). Determination of indicators of implementation of sea transportation safety management system for traditional shipping based on Delphi approach. Sustainability, 15, 10080. doi: 10.3390/su151310080
  79. Walker, D.H.T. (1997). Choosing an appropriate research methodology. Construction management and economics, 15, 149-159. doi: 10.1080/01446199700000003
  80. Van Laarhoven, P.J.M., Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 11: 229-241. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80082-7
  81. Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y., Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European journal of operations research, 186: 735-747. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.050
  82. Wang, Z., Yin, J. (2020). Risk assessment of inland waterborne transportation using data mining. Maritime Policy & Management, 47(5), 633-648. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2020.1738582
  83. Wu, B., Yan, X., Wang, Y., Soares, C.G. (2017). An evidential reasoning‐based CREAM to human reliability analysis in maritime accident process. Risk analysis, 37(10), 1936-1957. doi: 10.1111/risa.12757
  84. Xi, Y.T., Guo, C. (2011). A method for marine human error probability estimate: APJE-SLIM. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 97-98: 825-830.
  85. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8: 338-353. doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
  86. Zaib, A., Yin, J., Khan, R.U. (2022). Determining role of human factors in maritime transportation accidents by fuzzy fault tree analysis (FFTA). Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(3): 381. doi: 10.3390/jmse10030381
  87. Žagar, D., Svetina, M., Brcko, T., Perkovič, M., Dimc, F., Košir, A. (2022). Analysis of Marine-Pilot Biometric Data Recordings during Port-Approach Using a Full-Mission Simulator. Sensors, 22(7): 2701. doi: 10.3390/s22072701
  88. Zhao, C., Yip, T.L., Wu, B., Lyu, J. (2022). Use of fuzzy fault tree analysis and Bayesian network for occurrence likelihood estimation of navigational accidents in the Qinzhou Port. Ocean Engineering, 263: 112381. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112381
  89. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) (2024). ATSB Transport Safety Report Marine Occurrence Investigation (Defined) MO-2022-005 Final report – 26 July 2024. Canberra: ATSB.
  90. Pan, N.F. (2008). Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Automation in construction, 17(8): 958-965. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2008.03.005
  91. Ronca, V., Uflaz, E., Turan, O., Bantan, H., MacKinnon, S.N., Lommi, A.,. Borghini, G. (2023). Neurophysiological assessment of an innovative maritime safety system in terms of ship operators’ mental workload, stress, and attention in the full mission bridge simulator. Brain Sciences, 13(9): 1319. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13091319