Naviroutes and the North Atlantic
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 junc...
| Published in: | Journal of Navigation |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
1962
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0373463300041382 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0373463300041382 |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|