No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 January 2010
A revision of the North Atlantic Track Agreement would make it possible to form a larger group of subscribing companies. The existing tracks could be simplified and the danger of convergence on certain channels avoided by modifying the double landfall at Fastnet and Bishop and by moving certain junctions. This could be done without unduly lengthening the channels. One might also replace the concept of fixed channels by the more liberal one of protected channels, which one might call ‘Naviroutes’.
Ships wishing to follow these would benefit from increased safety by the use of certain simple rules, which may be summarized as follows:
A neutral zone, varying in size according to the region, of the blue-line type proposed by Oudet and Poll would separate traffic going in opposite directions. In good visibility ships crossing a ‘Naviroute’ would do so at an angle of more than thirty degrees; in fog ships would cross a ‘Naviroute’ at right angles and at low speed. Each of these rules is dictated by commonsense to every seaman with experience of crossing busy shipping channels.
* The less important cross-overs may be left for the moment, simply noting that the Nantucket cross-over needs a Y for tracks coming from E and F. It seems desirable, too, to retain the present clearance between the eastbound and westbound tracks.