Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:53:56.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sailing Problems Within and Near Traffic Separation Schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2009

K. H. Kwik
K. H. Kwik
Affiliation:
(Institut für Schiffbau, Hamburg University)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Traffic separation schemes have been established all over the world with the aim of reducing the danger of collision. Field observations have shown that despite the adoption by IMO and the laying down of the schemes on nautical charts a good many vessels do not comply with the steering and sailing rules applicable at traffic separation schemes. This paper attempts to review the apparent difficulties met. Some suggestions for improving of the situation are made.

The separation of traffic into two streams moving in opposite directions has been introduced with the aim of reducing the incidence of collisions. Such a measure results in a decrease of the rate of encounters and an almost total elimination of head-on or fine crossing meetings which are considered dangerous especially in restricted visibility. Investigations have confirmed the effectiveness of the measure in achieving the purpose provided that the steps taken are reasonable from a practical point of view.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 398 - 406
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

1Kwik, K. H. (1982). Traffic structure and safety in the German Bight. Ortung und Navigation, 1/1982, 104.Google Scholar
2Cockcroft, A. N. (1981). Routing in the English Channel. This Journal, 34, 392.Google Scholar
3Cockcroft, A. N. (1982). Unnecessary constraints associated with traffic separation schemes. Seaways, February 1982, 5–6, 9.Google Scholar
4Paton, J. (1982). Ship routing — present status and future trends. This Journal, 35, 113.Google Scholar
5Kwik, K. H. (1973). Ship encounter kinematics, collision avoidance and the rules of the road (in German). Institut für Schiffbau, Hamburg University, Report No. 294.Google Scholar
6Kwik, K. H. (1975). Calculation of the encounter rate (in German). Institut für Schiffbau, Hamburg University, Report No. 335.Google Scholar
7Kwik, K. H. (1979). Optimum crossing angles. This Journal, 32, 46.Google Scholar
8De Bièvre, A. (1983). Navigation safety in European waters. This Journal 36, 169.Google Scholar