## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Question Number** & **Safety Category Survey Questions** & **Mean \& Median Answer** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{10} & Reducing Licensed Deck Officers onboard & \multirow{4}{*}{**AGREE**} \\  & vessels with a proportional increase of & & \\  & automation will increase sensor over-reliance & & \\  & and increase information overflow for the & & \\  & Reducing Licensed Deck Officers onboard & \multirow{4}{*}{**DISAGREE**} \\  & vessels with a proportional increase of & & \\  & automation will reduce the percentage of & & \\  & navigational accidents & & \\  & Reducing Licensed Deck Officers onboard & \multirow{4}{*}{**NEITHER**} \\  & with a proportional increase of automation & & \\  & will reduce human fatigue & \\  & Reducing the amount of Licensed Deck & \multirow{4}{*}{**DISAGREE**} \\  & Officers onboard with a proportional & & \\  & increase of automation will increase Deck & & \\  & Officer compliance & & \\  & Reducing the amount of Licensed Deck & \multirow{4}{*}{**AGREE**} \\  & Officers onboard with a proportional & & \\  & increase of automation will decrease the & & \\  & daily duties and demands of the Deck Officer & & \\  & Reducing the amount of Licensed Deck & \multirow{4}{*}{**DISAGREE**} \\  & Officers onboard with a proportional & & \\  & increase of automation is safe & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Safety Category survey questions and response results. Figure 2: Likert Bar Graph representing scaled Training Category question responses. The 'Other' survey participants agree more strongly that complacency will increase. It is also determined that the majority, 25 participants, disagree that an increase in shipboard automation will reduce the amount of navigational accidents (26.2% strongly disagree and 33.3% disagree). Participants were neutral about automation affecting the amount of fatigue felt by Officers. The majority, 25 participants, disagree that an increase of automation will decrease their daily duties (11.9% strongly disagree and 47.6% disagree). The majority of the 30 participants also disagree that reducing onboard crew while increasing shipboard automation is safe (26.2% strongly disagree and 46.2% disagree). A Likert Bar Graph representing results from the Safety Category is found below, in Figure 3.  
Survey questions for the Feasibility Category, numbers 16-19, are found below, in Table 3.  
Regarding the feasibility of autonomous shipping, survey participants are neutral when asked about the feasibility and economic advantages of shipboard automation. The  
Figure 3: Likert Bar Graph representing scaled Safety Category question responses. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Question Number** & **Feasibility Category Surveys Questions** & **Mean \& Median Answer** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{16} & Reducing the amount of Licensed Deck & **NEITHER** \\  & Officers onboard with a proportional & **DISAGREE/AGREE** \\  & increase of automation is feasible & **NEITHER** \\  & Reducing the amount of Licensed Deck & **DISAGREE/AGREE** \\
17 & Officers onboard with a proportional & **DISAGREE/AGREE** \\  & increase of automation is economical & **DISAGREE** \\  & Onboard situational awareness can be & **DISAGREE** \\
18 & effectively replicated with advances & **DISAGREE** \\  & in simulation & **DISAGREE** \\  & In the future, vessels have a practical & **DISAGREE** \\
19 & potential to be safely operational as & **DISAGREE** \\  & fully autonomous & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Feasibility Category survey questions and response results. majority of participants, 32, disagree that SA can be accurately replicated shoreside (31.8% strongly disagree and 38.1% disagree). The majority of the participants, 28 people, also believe that it will not be safe to operate vessels in the future as fully autonomous (23.8% strongly disagree and 38.1% disagree). The Likert Bar Graph representing results from the Feasibility Category is found below, in Figure 4.