Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T06:22:12.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Escape Time: The Crucial Factor in Collision Avoidance Situations and Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1978

F. J. Wylie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Last year this Journal contained two articles by the writer in which he suggested the potential of fully automated radar plotting systems (FARP) in aiding collision avoidance. This was done by considering a number of past collisions and showing how different the behaviour of the ships involved might have been had they been using FARPs. This was an operational study and not a statistical analysis. He followed the line taken in previous articles starting as far back as 1965 and continuing in 1970 with some details of earlier automatic plotters and in 1972 with a comparison of manual and automatic plotting capabilities. In 1974 and 1975 there was a comparison of the different philosophies embodied in the later FARPs leading up to the studies of past collisions in 1977.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 438 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1978

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

1Wylie, F.J. (1977). FARP in the context of past collisions. This Journal 30, 232 and 441.Google Scholar
2Wylie, F. J. (1965). Ultimate essentials in radar presentation. This Journal. 18, 232.Google Scholar
3Wylie, F. J. (1970). Ship radars with automatic computation. This Journal, 23, 373.Google Scholar
4Wylie, F. J. (1972). The case for FARP. This Journal, 25, 51.Google Scholar
5Wylie, F. J. (1974–1975). FARP display philosophy I & II. This Journal, 27, 298 & 28, 345.Google Scholar
6Harrison, A. (1972). Risk of error in predicted CPA, IEE Conference No. 87 p. 75. Jones K. D. (1972). Requirements of anti-collision systems. This Journal, 87, p. 337. Maybourn, R. (1972) Cost benefit and related factors. Journal, 87, p. 22. Carney, Piercy, Beattie, Wylie (1972). Presentation requirements and errors, letters published in Shipping World and Shipbuilder, Jan. Mar, April, June and Sept. Wylie, F. J. (1974). Examination of Criticisms. This Journal 27, 111. Harrison, A. (1974). Examination of Criticisms. This Journal, 27, 268. Riggs, R. F. (1974). Sensor errors, Navigation (U.S.) 21, 16. Herther, J. C. and Wylie, F. J. (1975). Examination-of Criticisms. This journal 28, 97. Harrison A. (1975). Automatic Radar Plotting Systems. This Journal, 28, 363. Riggs, R. F. (1975). Modern CA display technique, This Journal, 28, 143. Rinaldi, R. G. (1975). Plotter display philosophy. This Journal, 28, 98. Wylie, F. J. (1976). FARP future position control. This Journal, 29, 292. Rowsell, C. G. (1977). Collision avoidance systems integrity study, This Journal, 31, 282. Butt, J. A. (1977). Collision Avoidance Systems—A ship operator's view. This Journal, 31, 268. Wylie, F. J. (1978). Comment This Journal, 31, 302.Google Scholar
7Jones, K. D., Perkins, C. S. and Butt, J. A. (1976). Automatic plotting radars. This Journal, 29, 23 and 31.Google Scholar
8Riek, J. R. (1978). CA Behaviour and uncertainty. This Journal, 31, 82.Google Scholar
9Netherlands Maritime Institute (1977). Report No. R 54 of 1st July.Google Scholar
10Harrison, A. (1977). Journal of IEEE 47, No. 4, 177. U.S. Coast Guard (1977). Marine Casualty Report No. USCG/NTSB MAR. 77.1. U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (1959). ‘Burgan-Bergechief collision.’Google Scholar