Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:19:54.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Encounters in Restricted Waters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2009

T. G. Coldwell
T. G. Coldwell
Affiliation:
(Humberside College of Higher Education)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lewison gave a brief outline in modelling of marine traffic flow and gave four possible definitions of the ship to ship encounter as well as developing his own optimal criteria. Barratt has been working on the concept of an encounter for several years and has developed the postulates given by Stratton in a presidential address to the Royal Institute of Navigation in 1971. It is interesting to note that Lewison1 distinguished between a ‘ship domain’, which is the area around a vessel that it is observed to keep free of other traffic and is estimated in terms of the actual density of shipping observed to occur around a vessel, and an ‘encounter area’, which is a radius traced out around a ship in the different directions from which threats may come and is the desired area which the vessel should try to keep clear. The nicety of the ‘encounter area’ is that it is generated in terms of mathematical models and in quantitative terms, and can be reasonably easily established; but it totally ignores any human element or navigators' preferences, whereas the ship domain takes both these factors into account and can only be established after long observation of actual traffic behaviour.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , May 1984 , pp. 271 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Lewison, G. R. G. (1978). The modelling of marine traffic flow and potential encounters. NMI Report: R15, February 1978.Google Scholar
2Lewison, G. R. G. (1978). The risk of a ship encounter leading to a collision. NMI Report: R21, February 1978.Google Scholar
3Barratt, M. J. (1973). Encounter rates in a marine traffic separation scheme. NPL Report: Mar. Sci. R107, May 1973.Google Scholar
4Barratt, M. J. and Hewson, C. (1974). Ship encounters and flow in selected areas of the Dover Strait. NPL Report: Mar. Sci. R117, September 1974.Google Scholar
5Barratt, M. J. (1979). Encounters, Near Misses and Collisions at Sea. Mathematical Aspects of Marine Traffic (ed. Hollingdale, S. H.).Google Scholar
6Barratt, M. J. (1980). Collision avoidance at sea, as observed by shore based radar. This Journal, 33, 341.Google Scholar
7Barratt, M. J. (1981). Collision risk estimates in the English Channel and Western Approaches. NMI Report: R115, August 1981.Google Scholar
8Stratton, A. (1971). Navigation, traffic and the community. This Journal, 24, 1.Google Scholar
9Goodwin, E. M. (1978). Marine encounter rates. This Journal, 31, 357.Google Scholar
10Ratcliffe, S, and Gent, H.The quantitative description of a traffic control process. This Journal, 27, 317.Google Scholar
11Goodwin, E. M., Lamb, W. P. and Kemp, J. F. (1983). Quantitative measurements of navigational safety. This Journal, 36, 418.Google Scholar
12Fujii, Y. and Shiobara, R. (1971). The analysis of traffic accidents. This Journal, 24, 534.Google Scholar
13Coldwell, T. G. (1983). Behaviour of marine traffic in restricted waters. This Journal, 36, 000.Google Scholar
14Coldwell, T. G. (1981). Marine traffic flow and casualties on the Humber. This Journal, 34, 38.Google Scholar