Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:48:22.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effect of Observational Errors on the Avoidance of Collision at Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 1964

Extract

At a meeting of the Technical Committee of the Institute held on 9 January 1963 it was suggested that recent theoretical treatments of the collision problem could usefully be extended to include a discussion of the near-miss situation and the effect of observational errors. The basic mathematical relations for near-miss encounters have been set out in this Journal on several occasions, notably by Sadler and Morrell, and in graphical form by Wylie. The recent paper by Parker deals with the effects of both systematic and random errors of radar observations of relative range and bearing.

My previous discussion of the collision problem was presented in terms of the idealized situation where two ships are on an actual collision course, in which case the sight line is in the same direction as the relative velocity vector (the relative track). To extend the results to a near-miss situation, one has only to redefine the angle α (see p. 24s of ref. 3) as the angle through which the relative velocity vector rotates when one or both ships manœuvre. I have pointed this out on a previous occasion: ‘The two craft need not be on a collision course; this definition of α applies equally well to a “miss” situation provided that no reference is made to the sight line.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1964

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

1Sadler, D. H., et al (1963). The value of a mathematical approach to the collision problem (Discussion). This Journal, 16, 196.Google Scholar
2Calvert, E. S., (1960). Manoeuvres to ensure the avoidance of collision. This Journal, 13, 127.Google Scholar
3Hollingdale, S. H., (1961). The mathematics of collision avoidance in two dimensions. This Journal, 14, 243.Google Scholar
4Calvert, E. S., (1961). A comparison of two systems for avoiding collision. This Journal, 14, 379.Google Scholar
5Sadler, D. H., (1957). The mathematics of collision avoidance at sea. This Journal, 10, 306.Google Scholar
6Morrell, J. S., (1958). The mathematics of collision avoidance in the air. This Journal, 11, 18.Google Scholar
7Morell, J. S., (1961). The physics of collision at sea. This Journal, 14, 163.Google Scholar
8Wylie, F. J., (1963). Why ships collide (Discussion). This Journal, 16, 346.Google Scholar
9Parker, J. B., (1963). The effect of uncertainties on the collision problem. This Journal, 16, 414.Google Scholar
10Hollingdale, S. H., (1962). Mathematics and Navigators (Forum). This Journal, 15, 337.Google Scholar
11Wylie, F. J., (1963). Collision at sea in fog: the commonsense approach. This Journal, 16, 100.Google Scholar
12Proctor, J. D., (1963). Anti-collision rules. This Journal, 16, 421.Google Scholar
13Stewart, J. P., (1963). Why ships collide (Discussion). This Journal, 16, 343.Google Scholar
14Calvert, E. S., (1958). The use of aircrew-interpreted devices for preventing collision in the air. This Journal, 11, 327.Google Scholar