Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T09:20:57.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Escape Time II — The Contribution of Automatic Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2009

Extract

In a previous article about Escape Time the writer mentioned automatic acquisition; this is taken by the writer to mean acceptance by the computer/processor of a radar echo and the subsequent initiation of the tracking process if the echo satisfies the requirement of one or more paints every 6 scans, and is one of the 40 (in Digiplot) closest to own ship. But he took the advantages of it to be so obvious that no special stress was laid on the desirability of its inclusion as standard practice. However, it is clear from the replies to the IMCO questionnaire on Radar Plotting, notably that of the International Chamber of Shipping, that although a very high percentage of informed maritime opinion (97) is in favour of automatic (computerized) radar plotting, a somewhat smaller though still a preponderant (65) percentage favours automatic acquisition. A similar view is taken in the United States' reply. Although to the writer this seems to be illogical or without good reason, it may be of interest to examine some possible subjects of controversy.

Type
Forum
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1979

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. (1978). Escape time. This Journal, 31, 438.Google Scholar
2IMCO (1977). Questionnaire on user requirements for radar plotting as an aid to collision avoidance. SN/Circ. 85, 22 Nov.Google Scholar
3ICS (1978). Analysis of replies to IMCO questionnaire, May.Google Scholar