Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:11:35.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Practical Application of Domain Analysis: Port of London Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2013

Andrew Rawson*
Affiliation:
(Marico Marine)
Ed Rogers
Affiliation:
(Marico Marine)
David Foster
Affiliation:
(Marico Marine)
David Phillips
Affiliation:
(Port of London Authority)
*

Abstract

Domain analysis has a well-documented history in peer reviewed academic literature; however there are few instances of its application to facilitate the assessment of system specific navigation risk. This paper details one example of a practical approach to domain analysis for a busy section of the River Thames in Central London. The results correlate well to known high risk collision areas on the river and help to quantify and corroborate expert opinion and local knowledge. However a number of conditions must be accounted for in undertaking a robust study such as the geography of the study site, the purpose and audience of the research, and the availability of data and its limitations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2013 

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

Adams, J. (1995). Risk. UCL Press, London.Google ScholarPubMed
Department for Transport, (2012). Port Marine Safety Code. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/38728/port-marine-safety-code.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2013.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. and Tanaka, K. (1971). Traffic Capacity. The Journal of Navigation, 24, 543552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, E. M. (1975). A statistical study of ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 28, 328344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.G., Jensen, T.K., Lehn-Schiøler, T., Melchild, K., Rasmussen, F.M. and Ennemark, F. (2013). Empirical Ship Domain based on AIS Data. Journal of Navigation, 66, 931940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harati-Mokhtari, A., Wall, A., Brooks, P. and Wang, J. (2007). Automatic Identification System (AIS): Data Reliability and Human Error Implications. Journal of Navigation, 60, 373389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Maritime Organisation. (1998). Resolution MSC.74(69) Adoption of New and Amended Performance Standards.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organisation. (2002). SOLAS Chapter V.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organisation. (2007). Formal Safety Assessment. MSC 83/INF.2.Google Scholar
Jingsong, Z., Zhaolin, W. and Fengchen, W. (1993). Comments on Ship Domains. Journal of Navigation, 46, 422436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontovas, C. A. and Psaraftis, H. N. (2009). Formal Safety Assessment: A Critical Review. Marine Technology, 46, 4959.Google Scholar
Marine Accident Investigation Branch. (1990). Report of the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents into the collision between the passenger launch Marchioness and MV Bowbelle. MAIB, Southampton.Google Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. and Uriasz, J. (2009). The Ship Domain – A Criterion of Navigational Safety Assessment in an Open Sea Area. The Journal of Navigation, 62, 93108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port of London Authority. (2006). River (Amendment) Byelaws: Thames AIS Byelaws.Google Scholar
Port of London Authority. (2011). Navigational Safety Policy. http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/93. Accessed 1 May 2013.Google Scholar
Port of Southampton. (2013). Port Users Information and Navigation Guidelines. http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/Port_Information/Navigation/Navigation_Guidelines. Accessed 23 May 2013.Google Scholar
Wang, N., Meng, X., Xu, Q. and Wang, Z. (2009). A Unified Analytical Framework for Ship Domains. The Journal of Navigation, 62, 643655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, N. (2013). A Novel Analytical Framework for Dynamic Quaternion Ship Domains. The Journal of Navigation, 66, 265281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar