Marine accidents cause many irreversible losses for life, property, and the environment. Moreover, accidents occurred in coastal areas cause even more. As a precaution, marine pilotage plays a key role in the safety of navigation. However, accidents still occur in coastal areas even if the pilot is on board. The paper, therefore, focuses on ship accidents that occurred while pilot is on board. In addition to pilot, as many complicated factors affect ship navigation in coastal areas and contribute ship accidents, solving intertwined relations between factors is essential to understanding accidents reasons. In this study, 32 factors contributing to ship accidents were identified based on accident investigation reports obtained from Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) and expert opinion. These factors were analyzed by using DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method to solve causal relations between factors. The findings showed that the human and ship related factors are the most significant main categories in the accidents under pilotage. In addition, their sub-categories which are crew training, ship condition, length over all, ship draught, master experience, pilot experience, and bridge team management have the most critical effect on the occurrence of accidents. It was concluded that there is a need for highly collaborative and fruitful relationship between master and pilot to provide safe navigation. Accordingly, effective control and preventive measures, which also provide a deeper understanding of safety management in the dangerous water are extensively discussed. Consequently, the obtained results provide valuable information for maritime transportation safety.
JohnANwaohaTCKpangbalaTM.A collaborative modelling of ship and port interface operations under uncertainty. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment2017; 231(1): 165–176. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.
2.
Turkish Chamber of Shipping. Maritime Sector Report. 2020.
3.
WuLJiaSWangS.Pilotage planning in seaports. Eur J Oper Res2020; 287(1): 90–105.
WildCRJ. The paradigm and the paradox of perfect pilotage. J Navig2011; 64(1): 183–191.
6.
HontvedtM.Professional vision in simulated environments — examining professional maritime pilots’ performance of work tasks in a full-mission ship simulator. Learn Cult Soc Interact2015; 7: 71–84.
7.
ParkYAYipTLParkHG.An analysis of pilotage marine accidents in Korea. Asian J Shipping Logist2019; 35(1): 49–54.
8.
ÖzkanGAkkuşMSÖzkanG.The effects of operating conditions on hydrogen production from sodium borohydride using Box-Wilson optimization technique. Int J Hydrogen Energy2019; 44(20): 9811–9816. 9th International Conference on Hydrogen Production (ICH2P-2018).
9.
van WestrenenF. A framework for a decision model of river-pilots based on their workload. Int J Ind Ergon1996; 17(5): 411–418.
Panama Maritime Authority. Report on the casualty investigation of the striking of M/V “New Katerin”, Imo no. 9138953 at Suez Canal, Egypt. C0010664-R01, 25 February 2016.
13.
ChambersTPMainLC.Symptoms of fatigue and coping strategies in maritime pilotage. Int Marit Health2015; 66(1): 43–48.
14.
ZhangXChenWXiY, et al. Dynamics simulation of the risk coupling effect between maritime pilotage human factors under the HFACS framework. J Mar Sci Eng 2020; 8(2): 144. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 144.
15.
ErnstsenJNazirS.Human error in pilotage operations. 2018
16.
ErnstsenJNazirS.Performance assessment in full-scale simulators – A case of maritime pilotage operations. Saf Sci2020; 129: 104775.
17.
WeiH.Ship piloting risk decision-making method based on fault tree analysis. In: 2017 4th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS), August2017, pp. 449–457. DOI: 10.1109/ICTIS.2017. 8047804.
18.
YıldırımUBaşar UğurluE. Assessment of collisions and grounding accidents with human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) and statistical methods. Saf Sci2019; 119: 412–425.
19.
GrazianoATeixeiraAPGuedes SoaresC.Classification of human errors in grounding and collision accidents using the TRACEr taxonomy. Saf Sci2016; 86: 245–257.
20.
NuutinenMNorrosL.Core task analysis in accident investigation: analysis of maritime accidents in piloting situations. Cogn Technol Work2009; 11(2): 129–150.
21.
OtayENÖzkanŞ. Stochastic prediction of maritime accidents in the strait of Istanbul. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on oil spills in the mediterranean and black sea regions, 2003, pp. 92–104.
22.
SharmaANazirSErnstsenJSituation awareness information requirements for maritime navigation: A goal directed task analysis. Saf Sci2019; 120: 745–752.
23.
SaidMHve NoorMFAM. Technique for the retrospective and predictive analysis of cognitive errors in maritime pilotage operations. In: 12th International UMT Annual Symposium Advancements in Marine and Freshwater Sciences, 2018, pp. 11–320.
24.
PyneRKoesterT.Methods and means for analysis of crew communication in the maritime domain. The Archives of Transport2005; 17(3–4): 193–208.
25.
ChauvinCLardjaneSMorelG, et al. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accid Anal Prev2013; 59: 26–37. Elsevier.
26.
AkyuzECelikE.A fuzzy DEMATEL method to evaluate critical operational hazards during gas freeing process in crude oil tankers. J Loss Prev Process Ind2015; 38: 243–253. Elsevier.
27.
GabusAFontelaE.World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva, Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Center, 1972. pp.1–8.
28.
GabusAFontelaE.Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility. DEMATEL report. 1973.
29.
BüyüközkanGÇifçiG.A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst Appl2012; 39(3): 3000–3011.
30.
SiSLYouX-YLiuH-C, et al. DEMATEL technique: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications. Math Probl Eng2018; 2018(1): 1–33. Hindawi.
31.
ZhouQHuangWZhangY.Identifying critical success factors in emergency management using a fuzzy DEMATEL method. Saf Sci2011; 49(2): 243–252. Elsevier.
32.
WuWW.Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl2008; 35(3): 828–835.
33.
YazdiMNedjatiAZareiE, et al. A novel extension of DEMATEL approach for probabilistic safety analysis in process systems. Saf Sci2020; 121: 119–136.
34.
ShenY-CLinGTRTzengG-H.Combined DEMATEL techniques with novel MCDM for the organic light emitting diode technology selection. Expert Syst Appl2011; 38(3): 1468–1481.
35.
ZhaoGIrfan AhmedRAhmadN, et al. Prioritizing critical success factors for sustainable energy sector in China: A DEMATEL approach. Energy Strategy Rev2021; 35: 100635.
36.
XiaXGovindanKZhuQ.Analyzing internal barriers for automotive parts remanufacturers in China using grey-DEMATEL approach. J Clean Prod2015; 87: 811–825.
37.
KoochaksaraeiRHMeneghiniIRCoelhoVN, et al. A new visualization method in many-objective optimization with chord diagram and angular mapping. Knowl Based Syst2017; 138: 134–154.
38.
Berle AsbjørnslettBERiceJB. Formal vulnerability assessment of a maritime transportation system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2011; 96(6): 696–705. Elsevier.
39.
Berle RiceJBJrAsbjørnslettBE. Failure modes in the maritime transportation system: a functional approach to throughput vulnerability. Marit Pol Manage2011; 38(6): 605–632. Taylor & Francis.
40.
LiuKYuQYuanZ, et al. A systematic analysis for maritime accidents causation in Chinese coastal waters using machine learning approaches. Ocean Coast Manag2021; 213: 105859. Elsevier.
Sánchez-BeaskoetxeaJBasterretxea-IribarISotésI, et al. Human error in marine accidents: is the crew normally to blame?Marit Transp Res2021; 2: 100016.
43.
ErolSBaşarE.The analysis of ship accident occurred in Turkish search and rescue area by using decision tree. Marit Pol Manage2015; 42(4): 377–388. Routledge.
44.
RothblumAM.Human error and marine safety. Orlando, FL: National Safety Council Congress and Expo, 2000. 2000.
45.
CiortanCE.Total loss of stability-capsizing of livestock carrier M/V “Queen Hin”, PISR registered (final report). 001/2020, Marine Safety Investigation Report. Palau International Ship Registry. 2020.
46.
NilssonRGärlingTLützhöftM.An experimental simulation study of advanced decision support system for ship navigation. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2009; 12(3): 188–197.
47.
Schröder-HinrichsJ-UHollnagelEBaldaufM.From Titanic to Costa Concordia—a century of lessons not learned. WMU J Marit Affairs2012; 11(2): 151–167. Springer.
48.
STCW (1978). International Conference on Training and Certification of Seafarers. STCW 1978: International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978: with resolutions adopted by the International Conference on Training and Certification of Seafarers, 1978. International Maritime Organization. 1993.
49.
DanielsenB-ELützhöftMPoratheT. Still unresolved after all these years: human-technology interaction in the maritime domain. In: International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, 2021, pp. 463–470. Springer.
50.
Sánchez-BeaskoetxeaJBasterretxea-IribarISotésI, et al. Human error in marine accidents: Is the crew normally to blame?Marit Transport Res2021; 2: 100016.
51.
NavasdeMayaBKurtRE.Marine accident learning with fuzzy cognitive maps (MALFCMs): a case study on bulk carrier’s accident contributors. Ocean Eng2020; 208: 107197. Elsevier.
52.
AydinMAkyuzETuranO, et al. Validation of risk analysis for ship collision in narrow waters by using fuzzy Bayesian networks approach. Ocean Eng2021; 231: 108973. Elsevier.
53.
AkhtarMJUtneIB.Human fatigue’s effect on the risk of maritime groundings–A Bayesian network modeling approach. Safety science 62. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014. pp.427–440.
54.
DorrianJBaulkSDDawsonD.Work hours, workload, sleep and fatigue in Australian rail industry employees. Appl Ergon2011; 42(2): 202–209. Elsevier.
55.
XhelilajELapaK. The role of human fatigue factor towards maritime casualties. Analele Universitatii Maritime Constanta2010; 11(13): 25–29.
56.
Panama Maritime Authority. COLLISION between MV “Green field”, Imo no: 8504870 and coaster vessel “Eureka”, Chittagong port, Bangladesh. M/V“Green field 1” R-039-2013-DIAM, investigation report. Panama Maritime Authority. 2013.
57.
GrandjeanE.Fatigue in industry. Occup Environ Med1979; 36(3): 175–186.
58.
SneddonAMearnsKFlinR.Stress, fatigue, situation awareness and safety in offshore drilling crews. Safety Science 56. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2013. pp.80–88.
59.
HetheringtonCFlinRMearnsK.Safety in shipping: the human element. J Saf Res2006; 37(4): 401–411. Elsevier.
60.
García-HerreroSMariscalMAGarcía-RodríguezJ, et al. Working conditions, psychological/physical symptoms and occupational accidents. Bayesian network models. Saf Sci2012; 50(9): 1760–1774. Elsevier.
61.
IMO. Guidelines on fatigue. London: IMO Publishing, 2002.
FanSYangZBlanco-DavisE, et al. Analysis of maritime transport accidents using Bayesian networks. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2020; 234(3): 439–454. Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England.
64.
WangLYangZ.Bayesian network modelling and analysis of accident severity in waterborne transportation: a case study in China. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 180: 277–289. Elsevier.
65.
VentikosNPStavrouDIAndritsopoulosA.Studying the marine accidents of the Aegean Sea: critical review, analysis and results. J Mar Eng Technol2017; 16(3): 103–113. Taylor & Francis.
66.
GoerlandtFGoiteHValdez BandaOA, et al. An analysis of wintertime navigational accidents in the northern Baltic Sea. Saf Sci2017; 92: 66–84.
67.
AllenPWadsworthESmithA.Seafarers’ fatigue: a review of the recent literature. Int Marit Health2008; 59(1-4): 81–92.
68.
JepsenJRZhaoZvan LeeuwenWM.Seafarer fatigue: a review of risk factors, consequences for seafarers’ health and safety and options for mitigation. Int Marit Health2015; 66(2): 106–117.
69.
EliopoulouEPapanikolaouAVoulgarellisM.Statistical analysis of ship accidents and review of safety level. Safety science 85. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2016. pp.282–292.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
