## 5 Results
To further verify the SEA application's usefulness, the results of several recorded situations were presented to watch officers with various sea experiences to evaluate the correctness of the actions taken. Assessors were additionally provided with information on radar adjustments made and target acquisition. The rating was given according to a scale:  
* 5--very good;
* 4--good;
* 3--acceptable/satisfactory;
* 2--failing/insufficient. The results of the expert-assessed simulation are shown in Figure 9, while the results of the evaluations of the experts taking part in the research are presented in Table 2.  
All participants in the research analyzed the traffic situation, determined speeds and distances, and then analyzed the solution to the situation based on the radar image of the discussed simulation. A comparison of the automatic evaluation of the SEA system and the evaluation carried out by the captains and officers of the watch indicates the high similarity of the notes given (especially for the solution proposed by BRAVO). It should be noted that the maneuvers executed by BRAVO were clear, efficient, and executed early enough. Such action is completely in accordance with COLREG recommendations. Figure 8: Example of the final report and assessment for the ship BRAVO. On the other hand, there are completely opposite notes issued for the ALPHA route. Some of the experts (four out of thirteen) considered such a route too risky and rated it negatively and, at the same time, as the highest note of most participants (eight out of thirteen). Such variation in evaluations is a clear indication of their subjective nature. It should also be noted that the ALPHA maneuvers are not as efficient as BRAVO maneuvers, and during the exercise, there were some small course corrections visible. This type of collision situation-solving is not recommended when ships are in restricted visibility. The evaluators made logical analysis, considered all navigational and weather conditions, and even took care of the economic aspect (changing course as little as possible so as not to consume additional fuel and return to the proper course as quickly as possible). The human factor also came into play as the character of the people who judged. The SEA \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Bridge** \\ **Name** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Rank**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Average** \\ **Note** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **SEA** \\ **Note** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{2-13}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**ALPHA** & **5** & 2 & 2 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 2 & 4 & 5 & 2 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 4.0 & **4.5** \\ \hline
**BRAVO** & 4 & 5 & 5 & 4 & 4 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 4 & 5 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 4.4 & **3.4** \\ \hline
**CHARIE** & 2 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2.8 & **2.0** \\ \hline
**DELTA** & 2 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 2 & 4 & 2.8 & **2.0** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the traditional evaluation conducted by experts and compared to the automatic evaluation of the SEA program. Colors indicate the most important data in the table for comparison. Figure 9: Navigation situation after 26 min of simulation-scenario reviewed by experts. program, by contrast, calculated penalty points based on the criteria and weights entered and, using a specific rating scale, gave a mark. Some evaluators chose the ALPHA route as the most appropriate and reasonable (eight very good ratings), while others chose the BRAVO route as the best and safest (six very good ratings). Considering the average rating, the best rating was given to BRAVO, while in the SEA program, the highest rating was given to ALPHA. With both assessments, the lowest rating was given to navigators on the CHARLIE and DELTA ships. In addition to knowledge and experience, it has also been observed that character traits such as conservativeness and lack of self-confidence affect the evaluation.