Deniz Kazalarının Önlenmesi: Denizcilik Eğitiminde Simülatör Senaryosu Oluşturma

Abstract

Tübitak 2209-A projesi destekli bu çalışma, denizcilik eğitiminde köprüüstü simülatörlerinin kullanımı için COLREG (Çatışmayı Önleme Tüzüğü) kuralları temelli standart bir senaryo geliştirmeyi ve bu senaryonun eğitim etkinliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, Ege Üniversitesi Urla Denizcilik Meslek Yüksekokulu’nda 54 öğrencinin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiş; değerlendirmeler Kirkpatrick eğitim modeli temelinde yapılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, katılımcıların eğitime yönelik memnuniyet düzeyi oldukça yüksektir (Cronbach α = 0,931). Anket sonuçlarında katılımcıların %90’dan fazlası eğitimi “iyi” ve “çok iyi” olarak değerlendirmiş, eğitmenin uzmanlığı 4,91 ± 0,29 ortalama ile en yüksek puanı almıştır. Öğrenme algısına ilişkin değerlendirmelerde en yüksek puanlar Kural 8 (Çatışmadan Kaçınma) (8,88 ± 1,29) ve Kural 5 (Gözcülük) (8,39 ± 1,46) olurken; en düşük puan Kural 18 (Tekneler Arası Sorumluluk) (6,82 ± 2,01) ve Kural 19 (Kısıtlı Görüş) (7,52 ± 2,08) olarak saptanmıştır. Davranış değerlendirmelerinde ise en yüksek başarı oranı Kural 17 (%100), en düşük başarı ise Kural 19 (%24,1)’da gözlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, standartlaştırılmış simülatör senaryolarının denizcilik öğrencilerinde hem öğrenme motivasyonunu artırdığını hem de kurallara uyum davranışlarını geliştirdiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, eğitim sırasında belirlenen güçlü ve zayıf alanların, denizcilik eğitim programlarının geliştirilmesi için yol gösterici olacağı anlaşılmaktadır. Çalışma, simülatör senaryolarının denizde emniyet, insan hatalarının azaltılması ve eğitimde kalite standartlarının yükseltilmesi açısından kritik öneme sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır

Keywords

• Deniz emniyeti
• Köprüüstü simülatörü
• COLREG
• Denizcilik eğitimi
• Kirkpatrick modeli

Supporting Institution

EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ FEN VE MÜHENDİSLİK BİLİMLERİ BİLİMSEL ARAŞTIRMA VE YAYIN ETİĞİ KURULU

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmanın, özgün bir çalışma olduğunu; çalışmanın hazırlık, veri toplama, analiz ve bilgilerin sunumu olmak üzere tüm aşamalarından bilimsel etik ilke ve kurallarına uygun davrandığımı; bu çalışma kapsamında elde edilmeyen tüm veri ve bilgiler için kaynak gösterdiğimi ve bu kaynaklara kaynakçada yer verdiğimi; kullanılan verilerde herhangi bir değişiklik yapmadığımı, çalışmanın Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)' in tüm şartlarını ve koşullarını kabul ederek etik görev ve sorumluluklara riayet ettiğimi beyan ederim. Herhangi bir zamanda, çalışmayla ilgili yaptığım bu beyana aykırı bir durumun saptanması durumunda, ortaya çıkacak tüm ahlaki ve hukuki sonuçlara razı olduğumu bildiririm.

Preventing Maritime Accidents: Scenario Development in Maritime Simulation Training

Abstract

This study, supported by the TÜBİTAK 2209-A project, aims to develop a standardized scenario based on the COLREG (International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea) rules for the use of bridge simulators in maritime education and to evaluate the effectiveness of this scenario in training. The research was conducted with the participation of 54 students at Ege University Urla Maritime Vocational School, and the evaluations were carried out using the Kirkpatrick training evaluation model. According to the findings, participants’ satisfaction with the training was remarkably high (Cronbach’s α = 0.931). More than 90% of the participants evaluated the training as “good” or “very good,” and the instructor’s expertise received the highest score with a mean of 4.91 ± 0.29. In terms of learning perception, the highest scores were observed for Rule 8 (Action to Avoid Collision) (8.88 ± 1.29) and Rule 5 (Lookout) (8.39 ± 1.46), while the lowest scores were found in Rule 18 (Responsibilities Between Vessels) (6.82 ± 2.01) and Rule 19 (Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility) (7.52 ± 2.08). In the behavioral evaluation, the highest success rate was recorded for Rule 17 (100%), whereas the lowest success rate was observed in Rule 19 (24.1%). The results indicate that standardized simulator scenarios not only increase learning motivation but also improve rule compliance behaviors among maritime students. Furthermore, the identification of strengths and weaknesses during training provides valuable guidance for the development of maritime education programs. This study demonstrates that simulator scenarios are of critical importance for maritime safety, the reduction of human errors, and the enhancement of quality standards in education.

Keywords

• Maritime safety
• Bridge simulator
• COLREG
• Maritime education
• Kirkpatrick model

Supporting Institution

Ege University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Science and Engineering

Ethical Statement

I hereby declare that this study is an original work. I affirm that I have fully complied with scientific ethical principles and standards throughout all stages of the study, including preparation, data collection, analysis, and presentation of information. I further declare that all data and information not obtained within the scope of this study have been properly cited and duly listed in the references, that no modifications have been made to the data used, and that I have accepted all terms and conditions of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), strictly adhering to the associated ethical duties and responsibilities. I acknowledge and accept that, should any circumstances contrary to this declaration be identified at any time, I will bear full responsibility for all ensuing ethical and legal consequences

References

1. Andoh, R., Mensah, D. ve Owusu, E. (2021). Trainers’ pedagogical competencies and trainees’ assimilation of training content. Journal of Workplace Learning, 34(2), 133-149.
2. Antao P. ve Soares C. G. (2006). Fault‐Tree Models of Accident Scenarios of Ropax Vessels. Int. J. Autom. Comput.3, 2,107–116.
3. Arenius, M., Athanassiou, G. ve Sträter, O. (2010). Systemic Assessment of the Effect of Mental Stress and Strain on Performance in a Maritime Ship-Handling Simulator. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 43(13), 43-46.
4. Ari, I., Aksakalli, V., Aydoǧdu, V. ve Kum, S. (2013). Optimal Ship Navigation with Safety Distance and Realistic Turn Constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(3), 707-717.
5. Aryadoust, V. (2017). Adapting Levels 1 and 2 of Kirkpatrick’s Model of Training Evaluation to Examine the Effectiveness of a Tertiary-Level Writing Course. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12, 151-179.
6. Awoniyi, E., Griego, O. ve Morgan, G. (2002). Person-Environment Fit and Transfer of Training. International Journal of Training and Development, 6, 25-35.
7. Batalden, B. M. ve Sydnes, A. K. (2014). Maritime safety and the ISM code: a Study of Investigated Casualties and Incidents. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 13(1), 3-25.
8. Benedict, K., Kirchhoff, M., Gluch, M., Fischer, S., Schaub, M., Baldauf, M. ve Klaes, S. (2014). Simulation Augmented Manoeuvring Design and Monitoring: a New Method for Advanced Ship Handling. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 8(1), 131–141.

9. Bhuvanagiri, C. ve Bhuvanagiri, S. (2022). Impact of Trainer-Trainee Interaction on Trainee Learning in a Work-Related Training Context. Academy of Management Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2022.16335abstract.
10. Bjørneseth, F. B., Dunlop, M. D. ve Hornecker, E. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of direct gesture interaction for a safety critical maritime application. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 70(10), 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.06.001
11. Bye, R. ve Aalberg, A. (2020). Why do They Violate the Procedures? – An Exploratory Study within the Maritime Transportation Industry. Safety Science, 123, 104538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104538
12. Chauvin, C. (2011). Human factors and maritime safety. The Journal of Navigation, 64(4), 625-632.
13. Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J. P., ve Langard, B. (2013). Human and Organisational Factors in Maritime Accidents: Analysis of Collisions at Sea Using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26-37.
14. Christensen, K., Kleppe, G., Vold, M. ve Frette, V. (2014). Quantitative Projections of a Quality Measure: Performance of a Complex Task. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 415, 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.06.068
15. Cohen, I., Brinkman, W. P. ve Neerincx, M. A. (2015). Modelling Environmental and Cognitive Factors to Predict Performance in a Stressful Training Scenario on a Naval Ship Simulator. Cognition, Technology and Work, 17(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0325- 3
16. De Souza, J. R., Tannuri, E. A., Oshiro, A. T. ve Morishita, H. M. (2009). Development and Application of a Ship Manoeuvring Digital Simulator for Restricted Waters. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 42(18), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.3182/20090916-3-BR-3001.0036
17. Engstrom, C. ve Helens-Hart, R. (2023). In-Demand Instructional Communication Competencies for Organizational Trainers. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86, 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906221149408.
18. European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), (2021). Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents 2021.
19. Formela, K., Gil, M. ve Sniegocki, H. (2015). Comparison of the Efficiency of Williamson and Anderson Turn Manoeuvre. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 9(4), 565-569. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.09.04.14
20. Glerum, D., Joseph, D., Mckenny, A. ve Fritzsche, B. (2020). The Trainer Matters: Cross-Classified Models of Trainee Reactions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000503
21. Hajjar, S. ve Alkhanaizi, M. (2018). Exploring the Factors that Affect Employee Training Effectiveness: A Case Study in Bahrain. SAGE Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018783033
22. Harrington, D. W. ve Simon, L. V. (2019). Designing a simulation scenario. Erişim Adresi: https://europepmc.org/article/NBK/nbk547670 (20.08.2025)
23. Hetherington, C., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in Shipping: The Human Element. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), 401-411.
24. Håvold, J. I., Nistad, S., Skiri, A. ve Odegård, A. (2015). The Human Factor and Simulator Training for Offshore Anchor Handling Operators. Safety Science, 75, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.001
25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.07.003
26. Hontvedt, M. ve Arnseth, H. C. (2013). On the Bridge to Learn: Analysing the Social Organization of Nautical İnstruction in a Ship Simulator. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9166-3
27. Hsu, H. Z., Witt, N. A., Hooper, J. B. ve Mcdermott, A. P. (2009). The AIS-Assisted Collision Avoidance. Journal of Navigation, 62(4), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463309990099
28. Husjord, D. (2016). Development of a Decision Support System in Ship-To-Ship Lightering. Journal of Navigation, 69(05), 1154–1182. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0373463316000126
29. IMO (2015). Guideline On Software Quality Assurance And Human-Centred Design For E-Navigation. MSC. 1/Circ.1512, 13 Jul
30. Inoue, K., Okazaki, T., Murai, K. ve Hayashi, Y. (2013). Fundamental Study of Evaluation at Berthing Training for Pilot Trainees Using a Ship Maneuvering Simulator. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 7(2), 135– 141. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.07.01.18
31. Jayarathne, B. N., Ranmuthugala, D., Chai, S. ve Fei, J. (2015). Accuracy of Potential Flow Methods to Solve Real-time Ship-Tug Interaction Effects within Ship Handling Simulators. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 8(4), 497– 504. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.08.04.03
32. Jensen, S., Lützen, M., Mikkelsen, L. L., Rasmussen, H. B., Pedersen, P. V. ve Schamby, P. (2018). Energy-Efficient Operational Training in a Ship Bridge Simulator. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.026
33. Kazerooni, M. F., Rahimian, M., Tree, M., Womersley, T. ve Jensen, B. (2023). Development and Validation of an Operational Fast Time Ship Manoeuvring Solver to Increase Navigation Efficiency in Horizontally Restricted Waterways. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 17, 71-76.
34. Kim, J.-K. ve Park, D.-J. (2023). Determining the Proper Times and Sufficient Actions for the Collision Avoidance of Navigator-Centered Ships in the Open Sea Using Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(7), 1384. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11071384
35. Kim, T. E., Sharma, A., Bustgaard, M., Gyldensten, W. C., Nymoen, O. K., Tusher, H. M. ve Nazir, S. (2021). The Continuum of Simulator-Based Maritime Training and Education. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 20(2), 135-150.
36. Kirkpatrick, D. L. ve Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
37. Kitamura, K., Murai, K., Wakida, S., Miyado, T., Fukushi, K. ve Hayashi, Y. (2013). Basic study of a ship navigator’s mental workload using salivary NO. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 8(3), 301–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/tee.21856
38. Kruger, J., Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
39. Kunieda, Y., Yabuki, H. ve Okazaki, T. (2015). Emergency Unberthing without Tug Assistance. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 9(3), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.09.03.09
40. Last, P., Kroker, M. ve Linsen, L. (2017). Generating Real-Time Objects for a Bridge Ship-Handling Simulator Based on Automatic İdentification System Data. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 72, 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2016.12.011
41. Luo, M., & Shin, S. H. (2019). Half-century Research Developments in Maritime Accidents: Future Directions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 123, 448-460.
42. Martins, M. R., & Maturana, M. C. (2010). Human Error Contribution in Collision and Grounding of Oil Tankers. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(4), 674-698.
43. McCafferty, D. B. ve Baker, C. C. (2006). Trending the Causes of Marine Incidents, 3rd Learning from Marine Incidents Conference. London, UK.
44. Mitomo, N., Hikida, K., Murai, K., Hayashi, Y. ve Okazaki, T. (2008). A Few Comments on Visual System of Ship Handling Simulator Based on Arriving Port. Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1890-1894. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2008.4811565
45. Miyake, R., Fukuto, J., Niwa, Y. ve Minami, M. (2013). A User Test of Automatic Navigational Intention Exchange Support System Using an Intelligent Ship-Handling Simulator. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(33), 97-102. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130918-4-JP-3022.00045
46. Morter, P. (2015). Safety First: How Simulating Marine Collisions Can Lead to a Safer Operating Future. Marine Log ProQuest, 6(120), 39.
47. Murai, K. ve Hayashi, Y. (2010). Toward Evaluation of a Student’s Simulator Training Using Heart Rate Variability. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 5(3), 375-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/tee.20545
48. Murai, K., Ishikura, A. Y., Hayashi, Y., Matsumoto, T., Kuramoto, K., Higuchi, K., Saiki, T., Takayuki, F. ve Maenaka, K. (2010). Toward Evaluation of Ship Bridge Teamwork for Marine Simulator Training Based on Heart Rate Variability. Science And Technology, 2-7.
49. Nabilah, S., Juniarahman, N. ve Purnomo, P. (2023). Eksplikasi Kirkpatrick Level 1 Dan 2 Pada Pelatihan Jarak Jauh Di Balai Diklat Keagamaan Bandung. Tatar Pasundan: Jurnal Diklat Keagamaan, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.38075/tp.v17i2.320
50. Nafukho, F., Irby, B., Pashmforoosh, R., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Lockhart, M., Mansour, W., Tang, S., Etchells, M. ve Wang, Z. (2022). Training Design in Mediating the Relationship of Participants’ Motivation, Work Environment, and Transfer of Learning. European Journal of Training and Development, 47(10), 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-06-2022-0070
51. Nilsson, R., Gärling, T. ve Lützhöft, M. (2009). An Experimental Simulation Study of Advanced Decision Support System for Ship Navigation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(3), 188-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.12.005
52. Nooramin, A. ve Parsa, J. (2010). Analysis of Violations of Safety Requirements Established by the International Maritime Regulations. Journal of Oceanography, 1(3), 21-28.
53. Olindersson, F., Bruhn, W., Scheidweiler, T. ve Andersson, A. (2017). Developing a Maritime Safety Index Using Fuzzy Logics. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 11(3), 469-475. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.11.03.12
54. Orlandi, L. ve Brooks, B. (2018). Measuring Mental Workload and Physiological Reactions in Marine Pilots: Building Bridges Towards Redlines of Performance. Applied Ergonomics, 69, 74-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.01.005
55. Paolo, F., Gianfranco, F., Luca, F., Marco, M., Andrea, M., Francesco, M., Vittorio, P., Mattia P. and Patrizia, S. (2021). Investigating the Role of the Human Element in Maritime Accidentsusing Semi‐Supervised Hierarchical Methods. Transp. Res. Proc. 52, 252-259.
56. Pitana, T., Pramudhita, M. T., Siswantoro, N. ve Napitupulu, J. R. C. (2023). Application of Virtual Reality as an Alternative Training Media as Complement of Ship Bridge Simulator (Case Study: Port of Tanjung Emas Semarang). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1166(1). IOP Publishing.
57. Pourzanjani, M. (2001). Analysis of Human Error in Co-Ordinating Ship's Collision Avoidance Action. ICCGS 2001: 2nd international conference on collision and grounding of ships (Copenhagen, 1-3 July 2001, preprints), 85-91.
58. Porathe, T. (2016). Human-Centred Design in the Maritime Domain. 12th Biennial Norddesign 2016 Conference “Highlighting the Nordic Approach”, NordDesign.
59. Roberts, S. E., Nielsen, D., Kotłowski, A. and Jaremin, B., (2014). Fatal Accidents and Injuries among Merchant Seafarers Worldwide, Occup. Med. 64(4), 259-266.
60. Ronca, V., Uflaz, E., Turan, O., Bantan, H., MacKinnon, S. N., Lommi, A., ... ve 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.
61. Saeed, F., Bury, A., Bonsall, S. ve Riahi, R. (2018). A Proposed Evidential Reasoning (ER) Methodology for Quantitative Assessment of Non-Technical Skills (NTS) Amongst Merchant Navy Deck Officers in a Ship’s Bridge Simulator Environment. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 12(3), 597-608. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.12.03.20
62. Saville, J. ve Foster, L. (2021). Does technology self-efficacy influence the effect of training presentation mode on training self-efficacy?. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100124
63. Sellberg, C. (2018). From Briefing, Through Scenario, to Debriefing: the Maritime Instructor’s Work During Simulator-Based Training. Cognition, Technology and Work, 20(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0446-y
64. Sellberg, C. ve Lundin, M. (2017). Demonstrating Professional Intersubjectivity: The Instructor’s Work in Simulator-Based Learning Environments. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 13, 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.02.003
65. Sellberg, C. ve Lundin, M. (2018). Tasks and Instructions on the Simulated Bridge: Discourses of Temporality in Maritime Training. Discourse Studies, 20(2), 289–305.
66. Siswantoro, N., Haryanto, D., Hikmahwan, M. A. ve Pitana, T. (2023). Implementation of Metaverse for Modeling the Ship Bridge Simulator Based on Virtual Reality as Educational Purposes, Case Study: Tanjung Priok Port Area. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1166(1), 012053. IOP Publishing.
67. Șerban, P. S. (2015). Case Study of Ship Squat in Sulina Channel Using NTPRO 5000 Navigational Simulator. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 809–810, 1193–1198. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.809-810.1193
68. Susanty, Y. (2022). Evaluasi Program Pengembangan Kompetensi Berdasarkan Model Evaluasi Kirkpatrick Level 1 dan Level 2. Jurnal Administrasi Publik, XVIII(2), 172-191. https://doi.org/10.52316/jap.v18i2.111
69. Tracey, J., Tannenbaum, S., Kavanagh, M., Alliger, G., Mathieu, J., Stoddard, L., Thayer, P. ve Yukl, G. (1995). Applying Trained Skills on the Job: The Importance of the Work Environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.239
70. Taggart, K., Kennedy, M., O’Connor, S. ve Van Gilder, D. (2024). Using the Kirkpatrick Model to Evaluate a Sepsis Escape Room for Advanced Pharmacy Learners. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 16(5), 352-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2024.02.004
71. Trodden, D. G. ve Haroutunian, M. (2018). Effects of Ship Manoeuvring Motion on NOX formation. Ocean Engineering, 150(X), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.12.046
72. Türkistanli, T. T. ve Kuleyin, B. (2022). Game‐Based Learning for Better Decision‐Making: A Collision Prevention Training for Maritime Transportation Engineering Students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(3), 917-933.
73. Uğurlu, Ö., Köse, E., Yıldırım, U. ve Yüksekyıldız, E. (2015). Marine Accident Analysis for Collision and Grounding in Oil Tanker Using FTA Method, Marit. Policy Manag. 42(2), 163–185.
74. Varela, J. M. ve Guedes Soares, C. (2015). Interactive 3D Desktop Ship Simulator for Testing and Training Offloading Manoeuvres. Applied Ocean Research, 51, 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2015.01.013
75. Varela, J. M. ve Soares, C. G. (2017). Geometry and Visual Realism of Ship Models for Digital Ship Bridge Simulators. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 231(1), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090216642470
76. Wang, X. H., Yang, S. H. ve Chen, G. Q. (2011). Design and Implement on Intelligent Target Ship for Ship Handling Simulator. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 97–98, 854–858. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.97-98.854
77. Weber, R., Costa, N. A., Jakobsen, J. J., MacKinnon, S. N. ve Lundh, M. (2018). Assessing a Maritime Service Website Prototype in a Ship Bridge Simulator: Navigators’ Experiences and Perceptions of Novel e-Navigation Solutions. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 17(4), 521– 542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0155-2
78. Winbow, A. (2000). Control of the Human Element. IFAC Proc.,33(21), 27–30. Xu, Q., Yang, Y., Zhang, C. ve Zhang, L. (2018). Deep Convolutional Neural Network-Based Autonomous Marine Vehicle Maneuver. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(2), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0393-z
79. Yang, S. ve Chen, G. (2011). Study on Dynamic Simulation System for Vessel’s Collision Process and its Application. Procedia Engineering, 15, 3875–3880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.725
80. Yang, S. H., Chen, G. Q., Wang, X. H. ve Yang, Y. B. (2011). Research on Network Communication Model of Intelligent Ship Handling Simulator. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 97–98, 787–793. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.97-98.787
81. Yang, Y. F. ve Feng, M. K. (2014). A Comprehensive Experimental Practice for Ship Bridge Resource Management Training Based on Ship Handling Simulator. Advanced Materials Research, 989–994, 5423–5426. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.989-994.5423
82. Yıldırım, U., Başar, E. ve Uğurlu, Ö. (2019). Assessment of Collisions and Grounding Accidents with Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) and statistical methods, Saf. Sci., 119, 412–425.
83. Zhang, W., Goerlandt, F., Kujala, P. ve Qi, Y. (2018). A Coupled Kinematics Model for İcebreaker Escort Operations in İce-Covered Waters. Ocean Engineering, 167(August 2017), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.08.035
84. Ziarati R. ve Ziarati, M. (2007). Review of Accidents With Special References to Vessels with Automated Systems - A Way Forward. AES07, The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology(IMarEST).