Article

Received 04.02.2026

Revised 23.05.2026

Accepted 25.06.2026

Published 06.07.2026

Retrieved from Vol. 30, No. 2, 2026

Pages 30 -40

Panchenko, V. (2026). Improving the methodology for assessing the influence of the quantitative factor of navigational hazards on the probability of safe navigation. The National Transport University Bulletin, 30(2), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.33744/2308-6645-2026-2-30-30-40

Improving the methodology for assessing the influence of the quantitative factor of navigational hazards on the probability of safe navigation

Vadym Panchenko*

Vadym.Panchenko11@outlook.com

This study aimed to enhance the methodology for evaluating the probability of safe navigation by incorporating the quantitative influence of navigational hazards. A set of mathematical models was developed to assess how the number and arrangement of hazards affect the likelihood of safe passage. Variance and correlation analyses were employed to quantify the impact of key risk factors. The findings revealed that the primary determinants of navigational safety include the distance to hazards, the accuracy of vessel position determination, the ship’s manoeuvring characteristics, and prevailing hydrometeorological conditions. For hazard distances exceeding 1.5 nautical miles, the probability of safe passage surpassed 0.99; however, at 0.8 miles, it declined to 0.78. When navigating between two hazards, the probability ranged from 0.97 to 0.995, depending on their spatial configuration. An increase in the number of hazards correlated with a reduced probability of safe passage: with five hazards, this probability could drop to as low as 0.65. Analysis of navigational measurement errors indicated that position determination with 0.5-mile accuracy yielded a safety probability of 0.995, whereas an error of 2 miles reduced it to 0.75. The implementation of integrated navigation systems improved safety levels by 5-10%. The results substantiate the effectiveness of a comprehensive navigation planning approach, integrating several core principles: precise coordinate determination via integrated systems, adaptive routing based on hazard density and situational variability, dynamic speed regulation according to environmental conditions, and proactive obstacle avoidance through predictive modelling and real-time data. This methodological framework holds significant practical value for enhancing navigational efficiency and resilience in areas of high complexity, enabling risk mitigation and route stability even under adverse conditions

collision risk; manoeuvring characteristics; spatial arrangement; adaptive routes; hydrometeorological conditions
  1. Antão, P., Sun, S., Teixeira, Â., & Soares, C. (2023). Quantitative assessment of ship collision risk influencing factors from worldwide accident and fleet data. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 234, article number 109166. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109166.
  2. Bi, J., Gao, M., Zhang, W., Zhang, X., Bao, K., & Xin, Q. (2022). Research on navigation safety evaluation of coastal waters based on dynamic irregular grid. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(6), article number 733. doi: 10.3390/jmse10060733.
  3. Bowo, L., Gusti, A., Waskito, D., Puriningsih, F., Muhtadi, A., & Furusho, M. (2024). Comprehensive analysis of navigational accidents using the MAART method: A novel examination of human error probability in maritime collisions and groundings. TransNav: The International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 18(3), 565-563. doi: 10.12716/1001.18.03.10.
  4. Chang, T., & Wang, H. (2023). Analysis and exploration of the impact of average sea level change on navigational safety in ports. Water, 15(14), article number 2570. doi: 10.3390/w15142570.
  5. Chen, Y., Xie, C., Chen, S., & Huang, L. (2021). A new risk-based early-warning method for ship collision avoidance. IEEE Access, 9, 108236-108248. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3099831.
  6. Fışkın, R., Atik, O., Kişi, H., Nasibov, E., & Johansen, T. (2021). Fuzzy domain and meta-heuristic algorithm-based collision avoidance control for ships: Experimental validation in virtual and real environment. Ocean Engineering, 220, article number 108502. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108502.
  7. Froese, J. (2022). Standardization of risk assessment in navigation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2311, article number 012015. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2311/1/012015.
  8. Fu, S., Goerlandt, F., & Xi, Y. (2021). Arctic shipping risk management: A bibliometric analysis and a systematic review of risk influencing factors of navigational accidents. Safety Science, 139, article number 105254. doi: 10.1016/J.SSCI.2021.105254.
  9. Gritsuk, I., Nosov, P., Dyagileva, O., & Masonkova, M. (2023). Improving safety of navigation by constructing a dynamic model of the navigator’s actions in the conditions of navigation risks. Transport Systems and Technologies, 41, 84-95. doi: 10.32703/2617-9059-2023-41-7.
  10. Gucma, S., Ślączka, W., & Bąk, A. (2022). Assessment of ship manoeuvring safety in waterway systems by relative navigational risk. Archives of Transport, 64(4), 119-134. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0016.1230.
  11. Ha, J., Roh, M., & Lee, H. (2021). Quantitative calculation method of the collision risk for collision avoidance in ship navigation using the CPA and ship domain. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 8(3), 894-909. doi: 10.1093/jcde/qwab021.
  12. Han, P., Zhu, M., & Zhang, H. (2024). Interaction-aware short-term marine vessel trajectory prediction with deep generative models. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 20, 3188-3196. doi: 10.1109/TII.2023.3302304.
  13. Huy-Tien, H., Tuyet Lan, N., Chung, P.V., & Nguyen, T.-L. (2023). Improvement model of navigational safety for inland waterway transport. Transactions on Maritime Science, 12(1), 29-44. doi: 10.7225/toms.v12.n01.003.
  14. International Maritime Organization. (n.d.). Maritime safety. Retrieved from https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/default.aspx.
  15. Kuhlman, K.L. (2013). Review of inverse Laplace transform algorithms for Laplace-space numerical approaches. Numerical Algorithms, 63(2), 339-355. doi: 10.1007/s11075-012-9625-3.
  16. Liu, T., Ma, J., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Research on spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of ship traffic flow in port waters based on AIS data. Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 1-11. doi: 10.54691/nwfyf729.
  17. Liu, Y., &, Ma, Y. (2023). A field theory-based novel algorithm for navigational hazard index. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(1), article number 178. doi: 10.3390/jmse11010178.
  18. Maritime Tactical Table MT-75. (1975). Moscow: USSR Ministry of Defense.
  19. Maternová, A., Materna, M., & Dávid, A. (2022). Revealing causal factors influencing sustainable and safe navigation in Central Europe. Sustainability, 14(4), article number 2231. doi: 10.3390/su14042231.
  20. Melnyk, O., Burmaka, I., Zaporozhets, A., Onishchenko, O., Burlachenko, D., & Nykytuik, P. (2025). In-depth analysis of strategies and techniques of navigational safety improvement and ship collision risk reduction. In O. Melnyk, O. Onishchenko & A. Zaporozhets (Eds.), Maritime systems, transport and logistics I (pp. 65-87). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-82027-4_5.
  21. Melnyk, O., Bychkovsky, Y., Onishchenko, O., Onyshchenko, S., & Volianska, Y. (2023). Development of the method of shipboard operations risk assessment quality evaluation based on experts review. In A. Zaporozhets (Ed.), Systems, decision and control in energy V (pp. 695-710). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-35088-7_40.
  22. Misuri, A., Landucci, G., & Cozzani, V. (2021). Assessment of risk modification due to safety barrier performance degradation in Natech events. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 212, article number 107634. doi: 10.1016/J.RESS.2021.107634.
  23. Nowy, A., Łazuga, K., Gucma, L., Androjna, A., Perkovič, M., & Srše, J. (2021). Modeling of vessel traffic flow for waterway design – Port of Świnoujście case study. Applied Sciences, 11(17), article number 8126. doi: 10.3390/app11178126.
  24. Öztürk, Ü., Boz, H., & Balcisoy, S. (2021). Visual analytic based ship collision probability modeling for ship navigation safety. Expert Systems with Applications, 175, article number 114755. doi: 10.1016/J.ESWA.2021.114755.
  25. Pham, L., & Van Hoang, L. (2024). A navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport: Continuous risk management matrix based on fuzzy Best-Worst Method. PLOS One, 20(3), article number e0320794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.
  26. Qiao, Z., Zhang, Y., & Wang, S. (2021). A collision risk identification method for autonomous ships based on field theory. IEEE Access, 9, 30539-30550. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059248.
  27. Rawson, A., Brito, M., & Sabeur, Z. (2021a). Spatial modeling of maritime risk using machine learning. Risk Analysis, 42(10), 2291-2311. doi: 10.1111/risa.13866.
  28. Rawson, A., Sabeur, Z., & Brito, M. (2021b). Intelligent geospatial maritime risk analytics using the Discrete Global Grid System. Big Earth Data, 6(3), 294-322. doi: 10.1080/20964471.2021.1965370.
  29. Uflaz, E., Celik, E., Aydin, M., Erdem, P., Akyuz, E., Arslan, O., Kurt, R., & Turan, O. (2022). An extended human reliability analysing under fuzzy logic environment for ship navigation. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 15(2), 189-209. doi: 10.1080/18366503.2022.2025687.
  30. Wang, S., Zhang, H., & Luo, X. (2022). Ship navigation safety assessment based on neural network. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computer and information science (pp. 71-75). Zhuhai: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICIS54925.2022.9882416.
  31. Wang, Z., Yan, X., & Wu, B. (2023). Prioritization of influencing factors for remote control intelligent ships collision based on fuzzy fault tree analysis. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on transportation information and safety (pp. 1380-1388). Xian: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICTIS60134.2023.10243827.
  32. Zhang, W., Meng, X., Yang, X., Lyu, H., Zhou, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). A practical risk-based model for early warning of seafarer errors using integrated Bayesian network and SPAR-H. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), article number 10271. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191610271.
  33. Zhao, C., Wu, B., Yip, T., & Lv, J. (2021). Use of fuzzy fault tree analysis and noisy-OR gate Bayesian network for navigational risk assessment in Qingzhou port. TransNav: The International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 15(4), 765-771. doi: 10.12716/1001.15.04.07.

https://doi.org/10.33744/2308-6645-2026-2-30-30-40