Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:54:36.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Towards Global Marine Traffic Control — the Need, the Technical Feasibility and the Social and Political Impediments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2009

A. G. Corbet
Affiliation:
(Department of Maritime Studies and International Transport University of Wales College of Cardiff)

Abstract

1. Introduction. Active MTC (Marine Traffic Control), in its various forms, is at present mainly confined to port areas and canals and their approaches, whereas all other areas are mainly subject to passive MTC measures; that is, the Collision Regulations, including traffic separation schemes, areas to be avoided by certain classes of vessels, deep water routes, etc. The Collision Regulations, however, despite many attempts to improve them, are fundamentally flawed by specious logic sanctioned, unfortunately, by legislation which is supported in turn by the well-meaning connivance of the courts. This paper highlights some of the insoluble problems of the Collision Regulations and looks at the planning of ocean passages, weather routeing, search and rescue, and fishery protection; and shows that there is already a measure of active MTC in these areas of activity. The future possibility of a comprehensive global active MTC system to deal with avoidance of collisions and strandings, in addition to those other activities, is considered with respect to technical feasibility and to social and political impediments.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1992

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

1The Sea Star [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 477 (C.A.).Google Scholar
2The Kaituna (1933) 46 Ll.L. Rep. 200 (C.A.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Corbet, A. G. (1986). What's a nearly end-on meeting vessel? Seaways — The Journal of the Nautical Institute Part 1 (November 1986), 910, Part 2 (December 1986), 59.Google Scholar
4Cockcroft, A. N. (1978). Statistics of ship collisions. This Journal, 31, 213218; andGoogle Scholar
Cockcroft, A. N. (1984). Collision at sea. Safety at Sea. June 1984, 19, Tables 7 and 8.Google Scholar
5Cotter, C. H. (1979). An early traffic scheme for the English Channel. This Journal, 32, 226271.Google Scholar
6The Roanoke [1908] P. 231.Google Scholar
7The Taunton (1928) 31 Ll.L. Rep. 119 (C.A.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8The Aracelio lglesias [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 7 (C.A.).Google Scholar
9The Auriga [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 384.Google Scholar
10The Nowy Sacz [1977] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 91 (C.A.).Google Scholar
11Corbet, A. G. (1986). What's a not–under–command vessel? Seaways — The Journal of the Nautical Institute (October 1986), 1920;Google Scholar
Corbet, A. G. (1987). What's a stand–on vessel?, Seaways— The Journal of the Nautical Institute (January 1987), 56; and see also ref. 3.Google Scholar
12Wepster, A. (1963). The weather routing of merchant ships (1) This Journal, 16, 389398;Google Scholar
Verploegh, G. (1963). The weather routing of merchant ships (2) This Journal, 16, 399407.Google Scholar
13 Many of the general comments on weather routeing in this section are based on talks on weather routeing of ships given by personnel of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office at a joint meeting of the Royal Meteorological Society, South Wales Branch, the Nautical Institute, South Wales Branch, and the Royal Institute of Navigation, Bristol Channel Branch, at UWIST on 4 February 1987. The speakers were: Captain Gordon Mackie, Marine Superintendent, Met. Office, Mr Brian Webster, Principal Scientific Officer, Met. Office, and Captain Arthur Berthwicke, Ship Routeing Division, Met. Office.Google Scholar
14IMO (1986). Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. IMO Publication 1986 970.86.20E —describes the system which is to employ the INMARSAT and COSPAS-SARSAT satellite systems, etc.Google Scholar
15 The AMVER Organization is described in Annual Notice No. 4B of the Annual Summary of Admiralty Notices to Mariners, United Kingdom Hydrographic Department 1992, 6567.Google Scholar
16 Two fairly recent examples of collisions in open waters: Collision, in heavy rain which both restricted the visibility and cluttered the radar displays, between the VLCC Aegean Captain and the VLCC Atlantic Empress 20 miles east of Tobago on 19th July 1979, –Report of the Marine Board of the Republic of Liberia 21st July 1981. Collision, in dense fog, between the m.v. Strait Container and the m.v. Eastern Corridor 90 miles east of Hong Kong; the Report of the Preliminary Investigation of the Republic of Liberia, 1 rth November 1985 states that Rule 14 (End–on Meeting) was violated; however, as Rule 14 only applies to vessels in sight of each other, and there was dense fog with visibility of less than 100 metres, it seems that the investigators of this collision were not familiar with the Collision Regulations either!Google Scholar
17 See ref. 4.Google Scholar
18 Liberian Casualty Report Formal Investigation into the Stranding of the Amoco Cadiz, Liberian Bureau of Maritime Affairs December 1980.Google Scholar
19 See ref. 16.Google Scholar
20 The AMVER Bulletin No. 1/1989, published by the United States Coastguard and the United States Department of Transport, shows that the number of vessels on plot every twentyfour hours during 1989 was about 2,200. This is clearly a very small proportion of the world's shipping.Google Scholar
21Burger, W. and Corbet, A. G. (1976). Marine traffic systems — future training. Marine Traffic Systems. Delft University Press, 268271.Google Scholar
22Corbet, A. G. (1989). Development of vessel traffic services — legal considerations. Journal of Maritime Policy and Management, 16, No. 4, 277292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar