## 1 Introduction
### Review of the Literature  
A lot of documented research on the influence of the human factor on marine accidents is based on modelling techniques and focuses on the identification and quantification of the probability of human and organizational errors [26; 27; 28; 29]. The HFACS method, being widely used, defines four cause categories: organizational influence, insufficient supervision, initial conditions for risky actions, and risky actions. In order to solve defined problems from a marine area, [PERSON] et al. [30] proposed the HFACS--Maritime Accident (HFACS--MA) method. It uses a SHEL model, which stands for Software (S), Hardware (H), Environment (E), and Liveware (L), to describe initial conditions in a traditional HFACS environment. Another method based on a similar idea, HFACS for passenger vessels (HFACS--PV), has been proposed by [PERSON] et al. [31]. It treats operational conditions as a new HFACS category. The authors of this method believe that operational conditions are not a hidden fault but rather a result of a higher-level component that then leads to the accidental results of dangerous actions. Another modification of the original method is HFACS Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (HFACS--FCM), proposed by [PERSON] et al. [32], where a fuzzy cognitive map is used to identify and quantify definitions of causes that are initiated in HFACS. It is mainly used to strengthen organizational safety measures for fire accidents and collisions [33]. Other documented techniques that are a modification of HFACS include FAHP [34] and ANP [35], which use a process of fuzzy analytical hierarchy to identify causes contributing to HFACS; HFACS and Chi-square test [36]; HFACS and FTA [37]; and fuzzy FTA, ANN, and HFACS [38]. Figure 1: Tree of events of contributing factors to accidents. Source: own study based on [25]. H—Human behavior, E—Environment, R—Rules, procedures, and training, T—Tools and equipment. Another source [39] shows that human-related factors play a significant role in shipboard accidents. For example, in 2020, 63% of accidents were caused by human error and 37% of accidents had a technical cause. Therefore, this problem should still be presented and possible solutions proposed; all components of a ship's operation should be carefully analyzed, cataloged, and broken down into specific parts along with their source and a set of recommendations provided on how to counteract their negative effects on the safety of life at sea. An essential element is social and situational systems [40; 41; 42]. Looking further into significant causes of marine accidents, refraining from proper visual observation, over-reliance on GPS, fatigue, commercial pressures, and distraction are other significant causes of accidents. In an archive issue of The Navigator, [PERSON], project director at The Nautical Institute, argued that new technologies and changing regulations can generate unknown direct causes of accidents [43]. A similar analysis can be found in another report from [PERSON] [44]. Nevertheless, shipping has maintained a long-term positive safety trend over the past year. Still, the recent COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine are major impact factors on global supply chain routes and capacity that have placed enormous stress on the system, with potentially detrimental outcomes: loss of life, loss of ships, exacerbated crew crisis, trade disruption, sanctions burden, and increased cost and reduced availability of bunker fuel. The main places of incidents are Southern China, Indochina, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The increasing number of costly problems may be associated with manning larger ships, the challenges of port congestion due to the shipping boom, and managing ambitious decarbonization goals. Port congestion puts pressure on crews and facilities, meaning there is no room for complacency [43].