STATEMENT BY DENMARK IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR A
MANDATORY SHIP REPORTING SYSTEM IN THE GREAT BELT
Upon request, Denmark provided additional information in relation to
the demonstrated need of introducing a mandatory ship reporting system in the Great Belt.
Denmark informed the Sub-Committee that during the last three years a
large number of serious incidents had occurred within the restricted area of the ship
reporting system in the Great Belt.
The incidents included
- 6 ships grounded in the vicinity of the Eastern Channel;
- 4 ships collided with lighthouses marking the entrances
to the traffic separation scheme "Off Korsør";
- 9 ships had to be denied passage of the low-level West
Bridge due to their size or air draft, which presented grave danger to the bridge;
- 3 ship/ship collisions in the vicinity of the Eastern
Channel;
- 3 dangerous near-miss situations with bridge towers in
the Eastern Channel; and
- 1 sailing ship with an air draught of 28 metres passed
the West Bridge, which only has a free height of 18 metres, in spite of the fact that
information about the 18 metres had been duly and repeatedly issued in the national
notices to mariners of the Flag State.
Furthermore, Denmark informed that 25 ships during the last two year
had contravened rule 10 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG),
1972.
On the categories of ships required to participate, Denmark explained
that the reason for choosing the lower limit of 50 GT was the fact that also these ships
presented a danger to the navigation of large ships in the narrow waters of the Eastern
Channel, which did not allow sufficient room for large ships to take avoiding action, in
case of a situation involving risk of collision with a small ship.
On the question as to the action which would be taken by the Danish
Maritime Authority in case of a ship failing to comply with the provisions of the
reporting system, Denmark informed that the failure would be reported to the Flag State
for further action following the same procedure as in the case of contraventions of the
provisions of rule 10 of the COLREGs.
