Karen Danielson

April 15th, 2005 by JCB
Posted in Articles

VTS FAILURE

Link to original pdf magazine article (Page 4):

pilotmag.co.uk/userfiles/Pilotmag%20281%20(Apr%2005).pdf

DANISH authorities are probing why a VTS system installed on the Great Belt Bridge to monitor shipping traffic failed to raise the alarm before the multipurpose container ship Karen Danielsen collided with the 18km suspension bridge early in March this year. The Danish Ministry of Defence’s Sovaernet confirmed that the VTS surveillance had failed as the 3,630dwt vessel headed off course into the lower western section of the bridge between the islands of Funen and Zealand. The chief officer was alone on watch at the time and was tragically killed in the collision and the Captain was hospitalised with several broken ribs, with three more crew suffering from minor injuries. All the Officers and crew were Croatian.

The Danish owned, Bahamas flagged,1985-built cargo vessel sustained major damage with the wheelhouse, foremast, funnel and cranes being ripped off as it passed beneath an 18 metre high western span of the bridge.

The accident was the worst ever since the bridge opened in 1998, leaving it badly damaged in one section but otherwise structurally intact.

An autopsy report on the Chief Officer revealed that he had at least 1.55 grams of alcohol in his blood and investigators said this level could explain the navigation error, The ship was travelling in ballast from the Fyn island to Finland, but failed to alter course and headed north instead of east and thus collided with the bridge.

The Danish coastal authorities admitted that this accident should never have happened because the Great Belt is monitored by radar and cameras which should immediately alert the authorities when a vessel leaves the shipping lane and gets too close to the bridge. The Danish navy’s operational command has admitted that it bore “some of the responsibility” for the collision since it had failed to alert the ship that it was heading straight for the bridge and they have indicated that this failure was due to human error.

This is the first case that I am aware of that has directly implicated a VTS system in a major incident and the subsequent enquiry will no doubt raise important questions over liability of VTS operators. With the increasing involvement of pilots in VTS centres many have expressed concerns over the potential liabilities which could arise, not just to the authority concerned but also individual operators, when a vessel is navigating in an area monitored by a port’s VTS. The outcome of this case could well have important implications for VTS and I will report on any developments as they become available.

JCB