Human factor is the main cause of maritime accidents. However, the in-depth study on the mechanism of cognitive errors in seafarers’ human error needs to be supplemented. This study empirically analyzes 116 collision cargo ships along the Yangtze River trunk line. To explore the relationship between seafarers’ task errors and the cognitive process of accidents, a seafarers’ cognitive error mining model is proposed, which integrates the Information, Decision, and Action (IDA) cognitive model into the Technique for the Retrospective and Predictive Analysis of Cognitive Errors (TRACEr). According to the approach of mining from the outside to the inside, firstly, the error mode in the cognitive stage of seafarer tasks are identified. Then the fine-grained main manifestation of the task errors is mined by K-means, and Apriori algorithm is employed to mine the hidden features between the external and internal error modes. The results show that there are four main problems of Yangtze River ship accidents, and seafarers have four to seven corresponding causal chains from psychological error mechanism to performance shaping factors for each major issue in the cognitive stage. On the basis of the results, this study summarizes the guiding principles of accident prevention and seafarer management measures to provide decision support for water traffic safety.
PazoukiKForbesNNormanRA, et al. Investigation on the impact of human-automation interaction in maritime operations. Ocean Eng2018; 153: 297–304.
2.
CorovicBDjurovicP.Research of marine accidents through the prism of human factors. Promet Traffic Transp2013; 25: 369–377.
3.
HetheringtonCFlinRMearnsK.Safety in shipping: the human element. J Saf Res2006; 37: 401–411.
4.
KandemirCCelikMAkyuzE, et al. Application of human reliability analysis to repair & maintenance operations on-board ships: the case of HFO purifier overhauling. Appl Ocean Res2019; 88: 317–325.
5.
GalierikováA.The human factor and maritime safety. Transp Res Proc2019; 40: 1319–1326.
6.
QiaoWLiuYMaX, et al. Human factors analysis for maritime accidents based on a dynamic fuzzy Bayesian network. Risk Anal2020; 40: 957–980.
7.
HuSLiZXiY, et al. Path analysis of causal factors influencing marine traffic accident via structural equation numerical modeling. J Mar Sci Eng2019; 7: 96.
8.
The European Maritime Safety Agency. Annual review of marine casualties and incidents 2019. Technical Report, European Maritime Safety Agency, Lisbon, 2019.
9.
The European Maritime Safety Agency. Annual review of marine casualties and incidents 2022. Technical Report, European Maritime Safety Agency, Lisbon, 2022.
10.
AkyuzE.A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational causes in cargo ships. Saf Sci2017; 92: 17–25.
11.
AkyuzECelikM.Utilisation of cognitive map in modelling human error in marine accident analysis and prevention. Saf Sci2014; 70: 19–28.
12.
LiuKYuQYuanZ, et al. A systematic analysis for maritime accidents causation in Chinese coastal waters using machine learning approaches. Ocean Coast Manage2021; 213: 105859.
13.
LiXZhouYYuenKF.A systematic review on seafarer health: Conditions, antecedents and interventions. Transp Policy2022; 122: 11–25.
14.
ÖstermanCHultC.Administrative burdens and over-exertion in Swedish short sea shipping. Mari Policy Manage2016; 43: 569–579.
15.
OldenburgMJensenH-J.Stress and strain among seafarers related to the occupational groups. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019; 16: 1153.
16.
DuLGoerlandtFKujalaP.Review and analysis of methods for assessing maritime waterway risk based on non-accident critical events detected from AIS data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 200: 106933.
17.
MaYLiuQYangL. Analysis of human factors affecting seafarers’ cognitive load on maritime safety. In: 7th IEEE international conference on transportation information and safety, ICTIS 2023, Xi’an, China, August 4, 2023–August 6, 2023, pp.1889–1898. New York, NY: IEEE.
18.
ArslanOErID.SWOT analysis for safer carriage of bulk liquid chemicals in tankers. J Hazard Mater2008; 154: 901–913.
19.
ChauvinCLardjaneSMorelG, et al. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accid Anal Prev2013; 59: 26–37.
20.
RocaEJulià-VerdaguerAVillaresM, et al. Applying network analysis to assess coastal risk planning. Ocean Coast Manage2018; 162: 127–136.
21.
ChenJBianWWanZ, et al. Factor assessment of marine casualties caused by total loss. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct2020; 47: 101560.
22.
KhanRUYinJMustafaFS, et al. Risk assessment for berthing of hazardous cargo vessels using Bayesian networks. Ocean Coast Manage2021; 210: 105673.
23.
ZhangDYanXYangZ, et al. An accident data–based approach for congestion risk assessment of inland waterways: A Yangtze River case. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2014; 228: 176–188.
24.
MontewkaJEhlersSGoerlandtF, et al. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems—a case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2014; 124: 142–157.
25.
FanSBlanco-DavisEYangZ, et al. Incorporation of human factors into maritime accident analysis using a data-driven Bayesian network. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 203: 107070.
26.
ZhangDYanXPYangZL, et al. Incorporation of formal safety assessment and Bayesian network in navigational risk estimation of the Yangtze River. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2013; 118: 93–105.
27.
ByeRJAalbergAL.Maritime navigation accidents and risk indicators: An exploratory statistical analysis using AIS data and accident reports. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 176: 174–186.
28.
PanXLinYHeC.A review of cognitive models in human reliability analysis. Qual Reliabil Eng Int2017; 33: 1299–1316.
29.
Di PasqualeVIannoneRMirandaS, et al. An overview of human reliability analysis techniques in manufacturing operations. In: Operations management. Massimiliano Schiraldi, InTech, Rome, 2013, pp.221–240.
30.
DalijonoTCastroJLöweK, et al. Reducing human error by improvement of design and organization. Process Saf Environ Prot2006; 84: 191–199.
31.
WuBYipTLYanX, et al. Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2022; 219: 108249.
32.
ChenS-TWallADaviesP, et al. A Human and Organisational Factors (HOFs) analysis method for marine casualties using HFACS-Maritime Accidents (HFACS-MA). Saf Sci2013; 60: 105–114.
33.
SonerOAsanUCelikM.Use of HFACS–FCM in fire prevention modelling on board ships. Saf Sci2015; 77: 25–41.
34.
UğurluÖYıldızSLoughneyS, et al. Modified human factor analysis and classification system for passenger vessel accidents (HFACS-PV). Ocean Eng2018; 161: 47–61.
35.
ShiXZhuangHXuD.Structured survey of human factor-related maritime accident research. Ocean Eng2021; 237: 109561.
36.
ShorrockSTKirwanB.Development and application of a human error identification tool for air traffic control. Appl Ergon2002; 33: 319–336.
37.
ShorrockS. The development and evaluation of TRACEr: A technique for the retrospective analysis of cognitive errors in air traffic control. School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 1997.
38.
HofmannSSchröder-HinrichsJU. CyClaDes Task 1.2 Incident and accident analysis.
39.
GrazianoATeixeiraAPSoaresCG.Classification of human errors in grounding and collision accidents using the TRACEr taxonomy. Saf Sci2016; 86: 245–257.
40.
SotiralisPVentikosNPHamannR, et al. Incorporation of human factors into ship collision risk models focusing on human centred design aspects. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2016; 156: 210–227.
41.
SmidtsCShenSHMoslehA.The IDA cognitive model for the analysis of nuclear power plant operator response under accident conditions. Part I: problem solving and decision making model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf1997; 55: 51–71.
42.
ChangYHJMoslehA. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: overview of the IDAC Model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2007; 92: 997–1013.
43.
ChangYHJMoslehA. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 3: IDAC operator response model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2007; 92: 1041–1060.
44.
ChangYHJMoslehA. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 2: IDAC performance influencing factors model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2007; 92: 1014–1040.
45.
ChangYHJMoslehA. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 4: IDAC causal model of operator problem-solving response. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2007; 92: 1061–1075.
46.
ChangYH. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accident (ADS-IDACrew). University of Maryland College Park, 2000, p. 406
47.
HendrickKBennerL. Investigating accidents with STEP. Florida: CRC Press.
48.
KanungoTMountDMNetanyahuNS, et al. An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: analysis and implementation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell2002; 24: 881–892.
49.
DongreJPrajapatiGLTokekarSV. The role of Apriori algorithm for finding the association rules in data mining. In: 2014 international conference on issues and challenges in intelligent computing techniques (ICICT), Ghaziabad, India, 7–8 February 2014, pp.657–660. New York: IEEE.
50.
ThakreKRShendeR. Implementation on an approach for mining of datasets using APRIORI hybrid algorithm. In: 2017 International conference on trends in electronics and informatics (ICEI), Tirunelveli, India, 11–12 May 2017, pp.939–943. New York: IEEE.
51.
WeiYYangRLiuP. An improved Apriori algorithm for association rules of mining. In: 2009 IEEE international symposium on IT in medicine & education, 14–16 August 2009, pp.942–946. New York: IEEE.
52.
RousseeuwPJ.Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math1987; 20: 53–65.
53.
WickensCDHollandsJGBanburyS, et al. Engineering psychology and human performance. 4th ed. New York: Psychology Press; Routledge, 2013.
54.
BroadbentD. The magic number seven after fifteen years. In: KennedyAWilkesA (eds) Studies in long-term memory, Wiley, London, pp. 3–18
55.
CowanN.The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav Brain Sci2001; 24: 87–114; discussion 114.
56.
WangHLiuZWangX, et al. An analysis of factors affecting the severity of marine accidents. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 210: 107513.
57.
LanHMaXQiaoW, et al. On the causation of seafarers’ unsafe acts using grounded theory and association rule. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2022; 223: 108498.
58.
QiaoWLiuYMaX, et al. A methodology to evaluate human factors contributed to maritime accident by mapping fuzzy FT into ANN based on HFACS. Ocean Eng2020; 197: 106892.
59.
HeLXiaoxueMWeiliangQ, et al. A methodology to assess the causation relationship of seafarers’ unsafe acts for ship grounding accidents based on Bayesian SEM. Ocean Coast Manage2022; 225: 106189.
60.
YangJSunYSongQ, et al. Laws and preventive methods of collision accidents between merchant and fishing vessels in coastal area of China. Ocean Coast Manage2023; 231: 106404.
