Decision in the TRICOLOR Case

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued an opinion as to the cause of the collision between the M/V KARIBA, a container vessel and the  M/V TRICOLOR, a car carrier which resulted in the sinking (with no loss of life) of the TRICOLOR in English Channel in December 2002.  In short, the Court found that the cause of the collision was solely the sudden turn of the KARIBA to starboard  in the close quarters of  a traffic separation scheme, to avoid a potential collision with the M/V CLARY which was tracking to be crossed by both the TRICOLOR and the KARIBA.

The opinion contains numerous references to the technological tools available to the Masters of the three vessels involved including ARPA, radio communications and fog signals,   Yet, despite all of the technology available, and perhaps because of the  misuse or non-use of those tools, human error raised its ugly head and this incident occurred.

Thanks  to Dennis Bryant and his Haight's Maritime Items for pointing out the issuance of this decision.

Comments

[capt A G Bhatia]

I do not agree to the decission. It is my personal opinion that all the three ships were at a speed much higher than the safe speed for those conditions of restricted visibility. Secondly the Tricolor was too close while overtaking Kariba and if in doubt he should have reduced the speed and not overtaken, till the situation improves. The immediate cause of the collision was the alteration of Kariba to starboard, but ther are other contributory causes as well. This is my personal opinion.

[Kevin Camel]

I agree. In most cases, there are multiple causes to any accident. But the point of the original comment is well taken, that technology cannot the place of prudence on the part of human operators.

[sriram]

The Master of Kariba is criticised for nto havign read teh manual of a radar installed the previous day. Not having rested for 17 hrs, among other jobs in port..overseeing the installation of the radar (we all know how professionally THAT is done!), I don't think a person who has not the time to rest would read a manual.

Most probably he was confused by the radar information display (This has been noted in the 5th circuit judgement) - Was it not the owner's responsiility (ISM Code) to ensure he was familiarised with it? The error in judgement causing the alteration may have stemmed from here.

Anyway since the appeals court has asked the 5th circuit court to re-analyse the apportionment (July 2007) blaming all 3 vessels, there is some respite here.

Why was tricolor on autopilot?
Was it ot wrong to overtake at this critical point?
Commercial pressures of container and roro vessels?

Peraps the installe's services could have been retained till the next port (which was just 2 days away)