34 ms·

Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

275 points by occamrazor 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago
It seems that this frigate sunk much too easily for a warship because of a failure of watertight compartmentalization. (Specifically, the part which allows the propeller shaft to interpenetrate multiple compartments.) There might be a parallel here with the Kursk. The watertight compartments were supposed to be hardened against explosive over-pressure, but I remember seeing a documentary where it was proposed that this hardness was compromised by installations of new equipment. There is also speculation that one of the watertight doors to the torpedo room wasn't even closed, which has parallels with the HMS Hood. (Not all of the ammunition transport safety features were used by the crew on the Hood.)
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  Well certainly the front shouldn't have fell off I can tell you that much. Hopefully they'll have removed the ship from the environment.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Well certainly the front shouldn't have fell off I can tell you that much. Water is quite heavy and dense. When you are jacking around with differential buoyancy, you're dealing with forces that can break the back of a ship. This is how torpedoes often wreak the worst damage. The overpressure can lift a part of the ship and break its back. Flooding the 1st 3rd or a ship could do something similar.
ALittleLight 8y ago
One issue the article goes into is that the sailors were distracted by their high tech bridge computers and so failed to notice the ship they were in the process of ramming. I have trouble understanding how this works - what is your high tech bridge gear showing you if not the surrounding area? Someone should be checking where the ship is going and whether they check with their mark one eyeballs or their high tech ship scanner doesn't seem to matter. In other words, I don't buy that the high tech gear getting in the way is the issue. The issue is that nobody was watching where they were going by means high or low tech, and thus they ran into something they shouldn't have.
- burfog 8y ago
  It may be a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, or more recently the Vista security alerts. People tune out warnings, or even disable them, if they are constant.
  - kristofferR 8y ago
    They were warned by radio too. "Helge Ingstad, Turn right." "We will do that, but can't now" "You have to take starboard, you are closing in rapidly. TURN!! There's gonna be a collition here then..." https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/
    - unixhero 8y ago
      So insanely arrogant.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 8y ago
  I’m not a sailor, but I was struck when touring various mueseum ships, including ships in service into the late 70s. They were pretty barebones in terms of equipment, comfort and distraction. With the light distraction of screens, reliance on automated systems, reduced crew levels, and leadership focused on things other than sailing ships, it seems to be an argument that has some merit to me.
  - kristofferR 8y ago
    It was also a few minutes after a shift change too.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      This in itself is a red flag: you should not be changing the watch during transit of a heavy traffic area. You do that well before you get into the heavy traffic area, and you put your highest skilled watchstanders on the bridge, so they have both the experience to handle heavy traffic and the time to build proper situational awareness before the heavy traffic builds up.
T3OU-736 8y ago
The theme of "too many screens/high tech gizmos in favor of doinf things by hand" seems reminiscent of other HN posts discussing the referred-to US Navy accidents. Couldn't help but be reminded of the "Children of Magenta" YouTube video mentioned in those threads on over-reliance on automation and technology in the cockpit of aircraft during non-standard situations. Thankfully no mortalities in this instance. Will the repevant learning occur?
kristofferR 8y ago
This site has a great animation of the crash, including the leaked radio communications: https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ Click "Helge Ingstad natt" to see the POV from the frigate. "Styrbord" means starboard/right, that's basically all the Norwegian you need to know.
- jorblumesea 8y ago
  This is really cool, thanks for sharing.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  Really cool, thanks. I’m actualy pretty surprised how much of the Norwegian language I could imply into English there. It wasn’t that hard to follow along on that map. Context matters a lot, I guess.
  - einaros 8y ago
    I’ve been meaning to translate the WebGL version embedded there, but never got that far. The downloadable versions (linked under the video) for Windows and Mac both have subtitles of the audio log, as well as the UI. And both have more correct lighting than the video clip that’s embedded on the page.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Norwegian is mostly intelligible with Swedish, but the words that differ from Swedish are very often exactly the same word in English. The Danes live on - in England.
    - pessimizer 8y ago
      Or rather the Angles live on, in Angland and in Denmark.
      - jacobush 8y ago
lcuff 8y ago
Saying this has "far-reaching implications" sits with me as click bait.
- cjtrowbridge 8y ago
  They shouldn't have collided; they weren't paying attention. They shouldn't have sunk; there wasn't that much damage but multiple critical structural systems failed which are present in many other ships from the same manufacturer.
- aardvark291 8y ago
  This is a reference to the fact, stated in the article, that Australia, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands have ships of a similar design built by the same shipbuilder, which may also suffer from design flaws that allowed this one to sink so readily.
  - yread 8y ago
    And for many of the navies these ships are the biggest most expensive and advanced vessels in the whole fleet. Imagine if the US Navy found out that Nimitz-class has a strange tendency to sink inexplicably
    - kps 8y ago
      They don't sink, but unplanned time travel remains an issue.
opwieurposiu 8y ago
Older ship designs had a flying bridge, where one or more lookouts would be posted. Open to the air, with very little equipment to distract or lights to blind. In moby dick the standing order was: Keep your weather-eye open, and sing out every time. Sing out! sing out every time! These newer ships, esp the stealth ships seem to have dispensed with this feature. Perhaps navies have decided that the advantages of stealth and not having to stand in the cold damp all night are worth the cost of an occasional mishap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bridge
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  They might have paid one sailor for a lot of years for the cost of this sinking.
  - nradov 8y ago
    They had sailors on lookout duty. But apparently the lookouts didn't understand what they were seeing, or there was a breakdown in bridge resource management.
    - hansthehorse 8y ago
      They were traveling at 17 knots in a busy channel at night. That alone seems crazy.
      - mcv 8y ago
        In traffic terms, that would be speeding, in the dark, with your lights off. And apparently while not paying attention to the other traffic. All we need now is drunk crew.
        SolarNet 8y ago
        I'd add texting while driving to the anology.
      - 8y ago
prestonbriggs 8y ago
I was pretty surprised at the 17 knots in a fjord.
- flurdy 8y ago
  It's fast, but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise. I would assume higher speed and quicker decisions are a normal part of that type of training. That I think is why there were American officers as well on the bridge at the time of the incident as part of cross training. Which is then disheartening to hear the Maltese registered, Greek owned tankship speak Norwegian, not English, at the time of crisis, and than then same from the onshore vessel traffic service. Also, you can travel along a huge chunk of the coast of Norway avoiding open seas by being in "fjords", though mostly they are not real fjords just sounds between islands etc.
  - dagw 8y ago
    but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise. Where they on a training exercise? The linked VG article makes it sound like the exercise was over and they where on their way home when the accident happened.
    - Tor3 8y ago
      They were. And they were in one of the most busy shipping lanes (due to the port being nearby), and a narrow one. There was no reason in the world why they would have their AIS off. What I wonder is if their own AIS monitor was also off? Why didn't they see the AIS signature of Sola TS and the other ships?
      - dagw 8y ago
        I wonder is if their own AIS monitor was also off? Why didn't they see the AIS signature of Sola TS and the other ships? According to the commission looking into the accident they did have AIS-monitoring on and had spotted and identified the 3 other ships on their right (which may explain their initial reluctance to turn right, into their path). No one has any good answer as to why they failed to spot/ignored the tanker even as it moved towards them.
nradov 8y ago
Shipbuilders are designing shaftless propulsion systems for future warships which would put electric motors and propellors in pods under the hull. That would improve hull integrity and reduce the risk of flooding multiple compartments.
- jabl 8y ago
  Yes, so-called 'Azipod' propulsion systems are quite common on many kinds of commercial vessels. However, for warships capable of 30+ kn, I'd guess there are challenges not faced by commercial Azipod usage.
  - rjsw 8y ago
    Engines in external pods won't be as quiet as internal ones, this matters if one of the roles of a warship is to hunt submarines.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Engines will still be inside the hull. Only the motors will be in external pods. So it shouldn't be any noisier.
tartoran 8y ago
Google transnation: Could "Sola TS" do more? "Sola TS" still had the tire lights when they drove out in the fjord, although ships should not light that obscures the visibility of the red and green lanterns. "Helge Ingstad" had noticed the lights that were the tanker and had plans to take a boat and sail around (ie on the side towards the fjord, not on the side towards the country). 3:58 AM said, "The Sola TS" captain is about to make a 10-degree change of course towards the fjord. A little after four o'clock, after Helge Ingstad reported that they would not turn into land, "Sola TS" hit the full hill in the machine. They put the ship in reverse, while the warship came against them at the same high speed. Why did they sail straight to the lights? A big question for the Havarikommission is what is why the KNM "Helge Ingstad" sails right towards the lights they think are part of the Sturerminal (but actually the tanker). No matter what the lights are, that's something they're on a collision course with. The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery. - Why do not they turn away? No matter if they think it's a fixed object or a ship? - That's what our survey will have to answer. We will look into how they used their technical aids aboard the frigate and how the cooperation was on the bridge, says Ytrehus in the Havarikommisjonen to VG. Could the ship be saved? The frigate is built with a series of watertight bulkheads that will prevent the boat from sinking. But the accident commission has found two errors in the boat construction . During the crash the frigate got a big flange in the side. Water flowed into the room with the generators that make power to the vessel. And that would stop there. But instead, water flows through a hollow propeller shaft and into the girder room. This is the first mistake they have notified. The damage About. 45 meters long cracked Adult man in scale Stock and cabins aft generator- room aft machine- room gear room fore machine- room The second mistake is that it does not stop there. Because when the girder room is also filled with water, the water moves on to the aft and the farther engine room. When do we get a final answer ?: The Hearing Commission has one year to deliver its final report. The police investigate if there has been a criminal offense during the accident, but the investigation will take time. The Armed Forces have set up their own investigation commission, but even who is in the commission is secret .
- benj111 8y ago
  "The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery" Google is failing me. Is this a Norwegian saying, or a mistranslation?
kwhitefoot 8y ago
How come the ship's radar didn't warn of the impending collision. If my Tesla can do it surely a warship should be able to.
- cm2187 8y ago
  I don't know why you get downvoted. I have the same question. A warship is loaded with radars, and he didn't run into a small non metallic object.
  - tim333 8y ago
    Yeah I was thinking they could have some sort of automatic collision avoidance system that beeps if it looks like you are going to hit something and then stops the ship if someone doesn't turn it off in case the staff are asleep or checking facebook.
- gvb 8y ago
  Your Tesla doesn't always warn of impending collisions: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/07/tesla-model-x-autopilot-crash-ntsb-report/681148002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/07/tesla-m... https://electrek.co/2016/11/29/tesla-model-s-crash-truck/ https://electrek.co/2016/11/29/tesla-model-s-crash-truck/ https://www.newsweek.com/autonomous-tesla-crashes-parked-fire-truck-california-freeway-789177 https://www.newsweek.com/autonomous-tesla-crashes-parked-fir... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/06/20/tesla-self-driving-car-crash/411516001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/06/20/tesla-s...
  - kwhitefoot 8y ago
    That it does not do it every time that there is a risk does not outweigh the fact that it is equipped to do it and the warship apparently is not.
sinuhe69 8y ago
Like people with a loaded gun, sailors and officiers of warships think they are invincible and anybody else has to avoid them and not vice versa. I guess the bleak reality after such incidents would give them a cold shower to wake up, but probably too late. All modern warships were designed as if they operate on open ocean only when in reality most of the time they must navigate in world where commercial shipping has grown more strongly than ever before. The most effective weapon for modern skirmishes seems to me simple but heavy built ships designed for ramming :D
- andyidsinga 8y ago
  Speaking about sailors and invincibility - there's a funny story that's circulated around (false according to snopes [1]) about a particular US and Canadian Navy interaction :) :) Text snipped from snopes article: Americans: “Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.” Canadians: “Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.” Americans: “This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.” Canadians: “No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.” Americans: “THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES’ ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT’S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.” Canadians: “This is a lighthouse. Your call.” [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-obstinate-lighthouse/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-obstinate-lighthouse/
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Yeah, I've heard variants of this story since I was a kid (usually with different countries substituted for "Canadians" here). Funny, nonetheless.
    - donaltroddyn 8y ago
      It was an ad for compasses years ago: https://youtu.be/sYsdUgEgJrY https://youtu.be/sYsdUgEgJrY
unixhero 8y ago
If you listen to the Audi recording , at least for me one thing seems clear. The navy personnel onboard the ship are INCREDIBLY ARROGANT when receiving warnings from the incoming bunker ship. Plot twist. An American Navy person was also on the bridge when the incident occured.
sebcat 8y ago
Pictures of the aftermath: https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5028-KNM-Helge-Ingstad/ https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5028-KNM-He...
MordodeMaru 8y ago
Funny thing is that Spanish company Navantia was the first to be accused of this (design errors, inexplicable sinking...) and in this article I still see some indirect finger pointing and yet no proof of that. There is some weird thing going on here.
- spanxx 8y ago
  It's always easier to blame others than accept own's responsibility.
- close04 8y ago
  The initial info is that the ship sank due to design flaws, like water getting through watertight seals. The collision is in no way attributed to the builder but to the ship's crew. >> Norwegian authorities found that confusion on the Ingstad’s bridge was the immediate cause of the collision, but that the ship sank because of progressive flooding. After the collision, water quickly moved through several watertight compartments, apparently via the ship’s propeller shafts, which pass through the bulkheads between the compartments through theoretically watertight openings (known as stuffing tubes or stuffing boxes) that should prevent progressive flooding. >> Based on crew interviews, authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly, jeopardising the watertightness of the ship. The investigation report warned that the faults that sunk the Ingstad could also be in other Navantia ships, raising questions about a possible problem with the design.
  - jabl 8y ago
    If the prop shaft or the hull is bent due to the collision, the stuffing boxes would not seal? Then again, with a glancing blow to the side of the ship, this should not happen?
    - close04 8y ago
      Sure, there are plenty of reasons a good design might still fail. But while further investigation might be necessary, the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision. It doesn't look like they're trying to pass the blame. The ship may have been still able to stay afloat after the collision assuming the seals worked as expected.
timonoko 8y ago
One solution might be allowing false identities in Marine Traffic aka AIS for navy and coast guard ships. They could claim to be civilian ships of same size. Especially while kayaking in Norway the AIS is essential, as bigger ships do not have any methods to detect kayaks except visual.
- timonoko 8y ago
  They could use ID's of decommissioned ships. Or ID's of ships with only seasonal use. The problem is that smugglers and spies soon learn those false ID's if they are not changed frequently.
  - tom_mellior 8y ago
    Or they could just frickin' identify themselves, in peacetime, in their own waters.
    - timonoko 8y ago
      No in Norway they cannot. The Coast Guard is after Russian Vodka Smugglers and the Navy is watching for Russian Sneak Attack. It does not work if the enemy knows where you are.
      - murderfs 8y ago
        It presumably doesn't work very well if you get run over by an oil tanker, though...
- martin_bech 8y ago
  That sounds a lot like a war crime. Military cant impersonate civilians, as it would open up to the targeting of civilians. •simulation of civilian status because civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities must be respected and may not be the object of attack (see Rules 1 and 6);[29]
- mcv 8y ago
  During peaceful maneuvers in busy civilian traffic, they should simply be honest about who and what they are. Safety depends on it.
spanxx 8y ago
How can you not see a big ship coming towards you even at night? I mean don't you see it's lights. Furthermore, they were warned repeatedly by radio. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but I can't help but think how they can be so incompetent? I'm afraid there is a worrying trend in these kind of accidents to deflect the blame to the electronics/software. Isn't your job to keep the car/ship/vehicle intact? Technology is there to help you but not to do your job.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Apparently, because the docks have a bunch of lights on them as well, obscuring the ship lights.
  - varjag 8y ago
    It's a 2009 commissioned stealth frigate, with every navigational aid you can think of (AIS, a range of radars, visible light and FLIR cameras) on the bridge. They also had repeated warnings over the radio.
    - tremon 8y ago
      I'm not sure if the radio transmission from https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ (linked already in various comments) is accurate, but if so, there were no warnings over the radio. Instead, they were directed to change heading but not informed why. I don't speak Norsk, but it seems like the first time "collision course" is mentioned is at 04:01:08, ten seconds before impact.
      - varjag 8y ago
        The first call to the warship was 03:10, some 1:20 before the collision. Followed by two warnings they are on collision course. Let's see it from a different perspective too. The oil tanker captain was able to identify an unknown vessel (with disabled transponder) as warship, guess its type and infer its name, determine the collision is imminent and warn them multiple times. This suggests absolutely inept crew on the frigate's bridge.
goodcanadian 8y ago
There are a lot of good comments on this story. What stood out to me in the article, however, was that they thought the lights on the tanker were part of the port. Sounds like a bit of a stupid mistake in the context of what other commenters are saying, but fine, whatever, you thought they were lights of the port. Why on Earth did you ram the port at 17 knots? EDIT: Yes, I understand they didn't think it was moving, but it would have been obviously close to their line of travel. A bit of caution would have been appropriate.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  It’s probably one of those things where everyone thought everyone else would notice that the port was actually another boat
  - Tor3 8y ago
    Yeah, apperently there were 7 people on the bridge.. way too many. Everything becomes "somebody else knows what's going on".
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Isn't the hierarchy of command specifically made to avoid that. "I thought someone else was in charge" doesn't seem possible on a plane/ship, and certainly not a military one.
- gnud 8y ago
  I guess they knew where they were, and how far away the port was. When the tanker was a fair distance away, they mistook it for the port, even further away. When they got closer to the tanker, it was too late.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- noselasd 8y ago
  That is one of the strange part in this - they got multiple warnings many minutes ahead about being on a collision course. The very thing one would expect in such a situation is to slow down, and get an overview of the situation.
raubtier 8y ago
Feminism caused the collision? http://freewestmedia.com/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-helge-ingstad/ http://freewestmedia.com/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-... Funny.
- vegardx 8y ago
  Funny how the pictured crew widely circulated on pages like these wasn't even on the ship. Norwegian Royal Navy has had women serving as captains for a couple of decades. This isn't something new, the only thing that has changed in recent years is that conscription is mandatory for everyone.
  - raubtier 8y ago
    Don't see your point. You can bet that it's quite unique to have 4 out of 5 female navigation officers. They brag about it a lot. One wonder how much affirmative action was needed to get them their. Hopefully none. There is a chance that the investagation is done thoroughly because this is quite serious, then it will show if not classified.
    - Tor3 8y ago
      What on earth has that got to do with this case? The radio operator and the navigator on the bridge weren't female.
rkangel 8y ago
Can someone please explain to me how a ship hits another ship that is showing full AIS? I have no understanding of what it's like on the bridge of a ship like that and would appreciate some insight. Surely they have a radar plot of themselves and their vector with the other ship, with a point of closest approach readout (ideally connected to an alarm). As a recreational sailor on a 28' yacht that's what we have, and monitoring that in shipping lanes is the priority. Can someone with understanding explain how this (to me) basic precaution might not happen on a professional naval ship with multiple bridge crew? For me, lets ignore the whole 'should the navy show AIS', and 'the ship was difficult to see because of lighting', not identifying a collision AIS vector seems like a single egregious failure.
- pfortuny 8y ago
  Bad training. Seeing as I see the training “engineers” are getting nowadays in Spain I am not surprised at all these events happen.
- amitparikh 8y ago
  > "The Sola TS became concerned about the situation. However, because the Ingstad wasn’t showing automatic identification system (AIS) data, initially neither the Sola TS nor the traffic station on shore could identify the frigate to warn it of the imminent danger."
  - maaaats 8y ago
    That doesn't answer the question (why no one on Ingstad saw the tanker on AIS)
  - simonh 8y ago
    Yes, but the Sola TS was showing AIS data, so how come the Frigate didn't see it on their plot?
- mjlee 8y ago
  I agree, this looks like a failure of the bridge crew. Any modern radar can be configured to show CPA based on AIS and on the radar tracks. They can also be configured with an audible/visual alert. The radar was either ignored or misconfigured, both of which are bridge crew problems.
donalhunt 8y ago
On the positive side, it sounds like there was very little damage to the tanker which would have had a devastating impact to the environment had it leaked its contents / sunk.
- mcv 8y ago
  Absolutely. When I hear about a collision between a warship and an oil tanker, I'd expect the warship to rip straight through the oil tanker, with devastating results. It's an unintended benefit of flimsy modern warships, I guess. But it'd be better if they actually watched where they're going.
  - dagw 8y ago
    When I hear about a collision between a warship and an oil tanker, I'd expect the warship to rip straight through the oil tanker, with devastating results. I think you're seriously underestimating how big and heavy oil tanker are. The oil tanker in this case weighed roughly 20 times (with cargo) what the warship did. From the warships point of view they might as well have rammed an island.
    - mcv 8y ago
      I don't doubt the tanker is big, but I'd expect it to be a lot less armored, and built as cheaply as possible. In any case, I'm glad my expectations are wrong.
      - Tor3 8y ago
        Modern tankers have double hulls, to avoid (or trying to avoid) disastrous oil spills in case of accidents. In addition to other strengthening measures. Quite the opposite of built as cheap as possible. Warships, on the other hand, are often built for speed, and something has to give. I remember visiting a (smaller) warship once, it could reach 40 knots, and it had a normal hull (not a catamaran or trimaran). The crew said the whole ship was made of very lightweight material.
      - 8y ago
sytelus 8y ago
Is it really the case that all these bazillion dollar ships are made without simple front radar that even Honda Civic comes equipped with? Also, no $500 nighvision for person on the watch?
jonsen 8y ago
“...Cognition in the Wild, a detailed study of distributed cognitive processes in a navy ship...”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins
yason 8y ago
I do wonder: - Why approaching something thought to be a fixed construction didn't trigger any alarms, mechanical or mental? It doesn't matter if the "tanker" was a stationary part of the harbour or a moving vessel because just looking at the change in their relative positions would have indicated a collision course regardless. - I suppose ships still have radars? Looking at a dot or an edge coming closer and closer on the radar screen should ring some bells. - The tanker had their identification transponder on as expected: why did not the military vessel get red lights flashing somewhere even if they chose to not turn on theirs? - Don't ships have any means to communicate emergencies? If the tanker couldn't contact the frigate by radio wouldn't the ship have deck lights or search lights or something that they could starting flashing, as a last resort, as soon as they observed that the frigate would in fact collide with the tanker's course? Heck, couldn't they even shoot flares at the frigate if that's really what it takes? In the air, accidents usually happen these days because of several things go wrong in sequence. Everything is basically covered for either in procedures or by technology but given enough unlucky sequential failures in various systems makes it possible for something fatal to happen, and sometimes it does. In contrast, and based on a couple of articles, this sounds like a trivial blunder. Is there a more comprehensive failure analysis still being worked on, and to be published later? EDIT: The tanker apparently did manage to contact the fregate by radio. And still they didn't "get it". I would like to see a more substantial breakdown of the causes rather than mere incompetence. Norwegians have lived and breathed the sea for ages, I generally do trust their ability to navigate a ship.
- mjlee 8y ago
  Ships have a siren (big horn). 5 short blasts is "you're about to hit me". The tanker absolutely should have sounded that as soon as it became apparent that something was wrong. They also absolutely have radars, and normally ones that will sound an alarm when a collision is possible. I suspect the bridge crew disabled the alarm in this case.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    The tanker was already in contact over radio with the frigate. Voice comms (when established) are better than horns.
alkonaut 8y ago
I get how they could be confused, not paying attention. But here they are communicating. This wasn't two ships not noticing the danger, (then we should discuss whether tech didn't help). Here one ship DID notice it and even communicated with the other ship. The only viable explanation for that is a) That kind of thing happens dozens of times per day so when it's actually a dangerous situation it's not registered as such (crying wolf), or b) complete sensory overload so that the "umm...yeah...ok" response is from someone who isn't really paying attention to what they are hearing. Also: my several years old car will scream with alarms if I'm closing on an obstacle, and eventually even start handling the danger for me (if I don't react to silence the alarm). I have to assume the same systems exist for a huge expensive warship. So not only was the AIS turned off - all collision alarms etc were too? Were they practicing some kind of stealth operation where they run without ANY active RF?
- jzwinck 8y ago
  > my several years old car will scream with alarms if I'm closing on an obstacle, and eventually even start handling the danger for me. I have to assume the same systems exist for a huge expensive warship. So not only was the AIS turned off - all collision alarms etc were too? I don't know how the military systems work, but I have used civilian maritime systems like the AIS you mention, some of which are built by semi-military manufacturers. Let me tell you, AIS is no silver bullet. AIS does indeed alert us when another ship is within a predefined radius. But it does not judge whether the distance is closing or widening. If a ship passes perpendicular to our course but less than the defined radius behind us, we get an alarm--exactly the same alarm as if it were directly in front of us and moving toward us. There is no feature like "alert 10 minutes before expected collision." Also, AIS has a feature where you can send messages as a broadcast to all nearby ships. The message you send could be "SOS SINKING 12 SOULS" or it could be "SATURN MICKEY WELCOME TO SALVADOR PORT" (a real one I saw last week with the names changed). The alarm at receiving stations will sound the same in both cases. In busy shipping lanes there are multiple of these messages received per day by passers by, and several obviously-not-dangerous proximity alerts at the very least. You can imagine why people might be inclined to turn them off.
  - 8y ago
jhellan 8y ago
You can find the preliminary investigation report here: https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25573&pid=SHT-Report-Attachments.Native-InnerFile-File&attach=1 https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25573&p... Interim safety recommendations: https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25575&pid=SHT-Report-Attachments.Native-InnerFile-File&attach=1 https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25575&p... From the (civilian) Accident Investigation Board. Their investigation continues. In parallell, there is a police investigation, and presumably a navy one.
walrus01 8y ago
Considering the accuracy of the radar systems (and dozens of millions of dollars spent on them) mounted on a modern frigate or destroyer, a warship crew should REALLY NOT be reliant upon other vessels' AIS to avoid collisions. Warships are maneuverable and fast. Physical failings of the ship aside, I think there's something wrong with the complacency of the crew training.
Symmetry 8y ago
It looks like a big contributing factor in the recent US destroyer collision was lack of sleep on the part of the crew. Are Norwegian crews also chronically sleep deprived?
pseudolus 8y ago
Is the frigate a write-off or are there any plans to refloat and repair?
anonu 8y ago
Interesting article and there are always better precautions and procedures that can be put in place. I am uncertain about the claims of "far-reaching implications". (a bit click-baity perhaps?) Depends on your perspective I suppose...
- aaronmdjones 8y ago
  I gather the far-reaching implications are that a lot of other ships may be similarly mis-designed (to prevent the progression of internal flooding); as the article says.
csense 8y ago
HN discussion of US Navy's collision issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077072 Somehow between the invention of ships in 10,000 BC or whatever and the modern day, we've lost the ability to keep them from running into each other.

275 points by occamrazor 8y ago

It seems that this frigate sunk much too easily for a warship because of a failure of watertight compartmentalization. (Specifically, the part which allows the propeller shaft to interpenetrate multiple compartments.) There might be a parallel here with the Kursk. The watertight compartments were supposed to be hardened against explosive over-pressure, but I remember seeing a documentary where it was proposed that this hardness was compromised by installations of new equipment. There is also speculation that one of the watertight doors to the torpedo room wasn't even closed, which has parallels with the HMS Hood. (Not all of the ammunition transport safety features were used by the crew on the Hood.)

CoolGuySteve 8y ago
Well certainly the front shouldn't have fell off I can tell you that much. Hopefully they'll have removed the ship from the environment.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Well certainly the front shouldn't have fell off I can tell you that much. Water is quite heavy and dense. When you are jacking around with differential buoyancy, you're dealing with forces that can break the back of a ship. This is how torpedoes often wreak the worst damage. The overpressure can lift a part of the ship and break its back. Flooding the 1st 3rd or a ship could do something similar.

ALittleLight 8y ago

One issue the article goes into is that the sailors were distracted by their high tech bridge computers and so failed to notice the ship they were in the process of ramming. I have trouble understanding how this works - what is your high tech bridge gear showing you if not the surrounding area? Someone should be checking where the ship is going and whether they check with their mark one eyeballs or their high tech ship scanner doesn't seem to matter. In other words, I don't buy that the high tech gear getting in the way is the issue. The issue is that nobody was watching where they were going by means high or low tech, and thus they ran into something they shouldn't have.

burfog 8y ago
It may be a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, or more recently the Vista security alerts. People tune out warnings, or even disable them, if they are constant.
- kristofferR 8y ago
  They were warned by radio too. "Helge Ingstad, Turn right." "We will do that, but can't now" "You have to take starboard, you are closing in rapidly. TURN!! There's gonna be a collition here then..." https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/
  - unixhero 8y ago
    So insanely arrogant.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 8y ago
I’m not a sailor, but I was struck when touring various mueseum ships, including ships in service into the late 70s. They were pretty barebones in terms of equipment, comfort and distraction. With the light distraction of screens, reliance on automated systems, reduced crew levels, and leadership focused on things other than sailing ships, it seems to be an argument that has some merit to me.
- kristofferR 8y ago
  It was also a few minutes after a shift change too.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    This in itself is a red flag: you should not be changing the watch during transit of a heavy traffic area. You do that well before you get into the heavy traffic area, and you put your highest skilled watchstanders on the bridge, so they have both the experience to handle heavy traffic and the time to build proper situational awareness before the heavy traffic builds up.

T3OU-736 8y ago

The theme of "too many screens/high tech gizmos in favor of doinf things by hand" seems reminiscent of other HN posts discussing the referred-to US Navy accidents. Couldn't help but be reminded of the "Children of Magenta" YouTube video mentioned in those threads on over-reliance on automation and technology in the cockpit of aircraft during non-standard situations. Thankfully no mortalities in this instance. Will the repevant learning occur?

kristofferR 8y ago

This site has a great animation of the crash, including the leaked radio communications: https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ Click "Helge Ingstad natt" to see the POV from the frigate. "Styrbord" means starboard/right, that's basically all the Norwegian you need to know.

jorblumesea 8y ago
This is really cool, thanks for sharing.
remarkEon 8y ago
Really cool, thanks. I’m actualy pretty surprised how much of the Norwegian language I could imply into English there. It wasn’t that hard to follow along on that map. Context matters a lot, I guess.
- einaros 8y ago
  I’ve been meaning to translate the WebGL version embedded there, but never got that far. The downloadable versions (linked under the video) for Windows and Mac both have subtitles of the audio log, as well as the UI. And both have more correct lighting than the video clip that’s embedded on the page.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Norwegian is mostly intelligible with Swedish, but the words that differ from Swedish are very often exactly the same word in English. The Danes live on - in England.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    Or rather the Angles live on, in Angland and in Denmark.
    - jacobush 8y ago

lcuff 8y ago

Saying this has "far-reaching implications" sits with me as click bait.

cjtrowbridge 8y ago
They shouldn't have collided; they weren't paying attention. They shouldn't have sunk; there wasn't that much damage but multiple critical structural systems failed which are present in many other ships from the same manufacturer.
aardvark291 8y ago
This is a reference to the fact, stated in the article, that Australia, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands have ships of a similar design built by the same shipbuilder, which may also suffer from design flaws that allowed this one to sink so readily.
- yread 8y ago
  And for many of the navies these ships are the biggest most expensive and advanced vessels in the whole fleet. Imagine if the US Navy found out that Nimitz-class has a strange tendency to sink inexplicably
  - kps 8y ago
    They don't sink, but unplanned time travel remains an issue.

opwieurposiu 8y ago

Older ship designs had a flying bridge, where one or more lookouts would be posted. Open to the air, with very little equipment to distract or lights to blind. In moby dick the standing order was: Keep your weather-eye open, and sing out every time. Sing out! sing out every time! These newer ships, esp the stealth ships seem to have dispensed with this feature. Perhaps navies have decided that the advantages of stealth and not having to stand in the cold damp all night are worth the cost of an occasional mishap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bridge

8bitsrule 8y ago
They might have paid one sailor for a lot of years for the cost of this sinking.
- nradov 8y ago
  They had sailors on lookout duty. But apparently the lookouts didn't understand what they were seeing, or there was a breakdown in bridge resource management.
  - hansthehorse 8y ago
    They were traveling at 17 knots in a busy channel at night. That alone seems crazy.
    - mcv 8y ago
      In traffic terms, that would be speeding, in the dark, with your lights off. And apparently while not paying attention to the other traffic. All we need now is drunk crew.
      - SolarNet 8y ago
        I'd add texting while driving to the anology.
    - 8y ago

prestonbriggs 8y ago

I was pretty surprised at the 17 knots in a fjord.

flurdy 8y ago
It's fast, but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise. I would assume higher speed and quicker decisions are a normal part of that type of training. That I think is why there were American officers as well on the bridge at the time of the incident as part of cross training. Which is then disheartening to hear the Maltese registered, Greek owned tankship speak Norwegian, not English, at the time of crisis, and than then same from the onshore vessel traffic service. Also, you can travel along a huge chunk of the coast of Norway avoiding open seas by being in "fjords", though mostly they are not real fjords just sounds between islands etc.
- dagw 8y ago
  but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise. Where they on a training exercise? The linked VG article makes it sound like the exercise was over and they where on their way home when the accident happened.
  - Tor3 8y ago
    They were. And they were in one of the most busy shipping lanes (due to the port being nearby), and a narrow one. There was no reason in the world why they would have their AIS off. What I wonder is if their own AIS monitor was also off? Why didn't they see the AIS signature of Sola TS and the other ships?
    - dagw 8y ago
      I wonder is if their own AIS monitor was also off? Why didn't they see the AIS signature of Sola TS and the other ships? According to the commission looking into the accident they did have AIS-monitoring on and had spotted and identified the 3 other ships on their right (which may explain their initial reluctance to turn right, into their path). No one has any good answer as to why they failed to spot/ignored the tanker even as it moved towards them.

nradov 8y ago

Shipbuilders are designing shaftless propulsion systems for future warships which would put electric motors and propellors in pods under the hull. That would improve hull integrity and reduce the risk of flooding multiple compartments.

jabl 8y ago
Yes, so-called 'Azipod' propulsion systems are quite common on many kinds of commercial vessels. However, for warships capable of 30+ kn, I'd guess there are challenges not faced by commercial Azipod usage.
- rjsw 8y ago
  Engines in external pods won't be as quiet as internal ones, this matters if one of the roles of a warship is to hunt submarines.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Engines will still be inside the hull. Only the motors will be in external pods. So it shouldn't be any noisier.

tartoran 8y ago

Google transnation: Could "Sola TS" do more? "Sola TS" still had the tire lights when they drove out in the fjord, although ships should not light that obscures the visibility of the red and green lanterns. "Helge Ingstad" had noticed the lights that were the tanker and had plans to take a boat and sail around (ie on the side towards the fjord, not on the side towards the country). 3:58 AM said, "The Sola TS" captain is about to make a 10-degree change of course towards the fjord. A little after four o'clock, after Helge Ingstad reported that they would not turn into land, "Sola TS" hit the full hill in the machine. They put the ship in reverse, while the warship came against them at the same high speed. Why did they sail straight to the lights? A big question for the Havarikommission is what is why the KNM "Helge Ingstad" sails right towards the lights they think are part of the Sturerminal (but actually the tanker). No matter what the lights are, that's something they're on a collision course with. The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery. - Why do not they turn away? No matter if they think it's a fixed object or a ship? - That's what our survey will have to answer. We will look into how they used their technical aids aboard the frigate and how the cooperation was on the bridge, says Ytrehus in the Havarikommisjonen to VG. Could the ship be saved? The frigate is built with a series of watertight bulkheads that will prevent the boat from sinking. But the accident commission has found two errors in the boat construction . During the crash the frigate got a big flange in the side. Water flowed into the room with the generators that make power to the vessel. And that would stop there. But instead, water flows through a hollow propeller shaft and into the girder room. This is the first mistake they have notified. The damage About. 45 meters long cracked Adult man in scale Stock and cabins aft generator- room aft machine- room gear room fore machine- room The second mistake is that it does not stop there. Because when the girder room is also filled with water, the water moves on to the aft and the farther engine room. When do we get a final answer ?: The Hearing Commission has one year to deliver its final report. The police investigate if there has been a criminal offense during the accident, but the investigation will take time. The Armed Forces have set up their own investigation commission, but even who is in the commission is secret .

benj111 8y ago
"The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery" Google is failing me. Is this a Norwegian saying, or a mistranslation?

kwhitefoot 8y ago

How come the ship's radar didn't warn of the impending collision. If my Tesla can do it surely a warship should be able to.

cm2187 8y ago
I don't know why you get downvoted. I have the same question. A warship is loaded with radars, and he didn't run into a small non metallic object.
- tim333 8y ago
  Yeah I was thinking they could have some sort of automatic collision avoidance system that beeps if it looks like you are going to hit something and then stops the ship if someone doesn't turn it off in case the staff are asleep or checking facebook.
gvb 8y ago
Your Tesla doesn't always warn of impending collisions: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/07/tesla-model-x-autopilot-crash-ntsb-report/681148002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/07/tesla-m... https://electrek.co/2016/11/29/tesla-model-s-crash-truck/ https://electrek.co/2016/11/29/tesla-model-s-crash-truck/ https://www.newsweek.com/autonomous-tesla-crashes-parked-fire-truck-california-freeway-789177 https://www.newsweek.com/autonomous-tesla-crashes-parked-fir... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/06/20/tesla-self-driving-car-crash/411516001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/06/20/tesla-s...
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  That it does not do it every time that there is a risk does not outweigh the fact that it is equipped to do it and the warship apparently is not.

sinuhe69 8y ago

Like people with a loaded gun, sailors and officiers of warships think they are invincible and anybody else has to avoid them and not vice versa. I guess the bleak reality after such incidents would give them a cold shower to wake up, but probably too late. All modern warships were designed as if they operate on open ocean only when in reality most of the time they must navigate in world where commercial shipping has grown more strongly than ever before. The most effective weapon for modern skirmishes seems to me simple but heavy built ships designed for ramming :D

andyidsinga 8y ago
Speaking about sailors and invincibility - there's a funny story that's circulated around (false according to snopes [1]) about a particular US and Canadian Navy interaction :) :) Text snipped from snopes article: Americans: “Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.” Canadians: “Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.” Americans: “This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.” Canadians: “No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.” Americans: “THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES’ ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT’S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.” Canadians: “This is a lighthouse. Your call.” [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-obstinate-lighthouse/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-obstinate-lighthouse/
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Yeah, I've heard variants of this story since I was a kid (usually with different countries substituted for "Canadians" here). Funny, nonetheless.
  - donaltroddyn 8y ago
    It was an ad for compasses years ago: https://youtu.be/sYsdUgEgJrY https://youtu.be/sYsdUgEgJrY

unixhero 8y ago

If you listen to the Audi recording , at least for me one thing seems clear. The navy personnel onboard the ship are INCREDIBLY ARROGANT when receiving warnings from the incoming bunker ship. Plot twist. An American Navy person was also on the bridge when the incident occured.

sebcat 8y ago

Pictures of the aftermath: https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5028-KNM-Helge-Ingstad/ https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5028-KNM-He...

MordodeMaru 8y ago

Funny thing is that Spanish company Navantia was the first to be accused of this (design errors, inexplicable sinking...) and in this article I still see some indirect finger pointing and yet no proof of that. There is some weird thing going on here.

spanxx 8y ago
It's always easier to blame others than accept own's responsibility.
close04 8y ago
The initial info is that the ship sank due to design flaws, like water getting through watertight seals. The collision is in no way attributed to the builder but to the ship's crew. >> Norwegian authorities found that confusion on the Ingstad’s bridge was the immediate cause of the collision, but that the ship sank because of progressive flooding. After the collision, water quickly moved through several watertight compartments, apparently via the ship’s propeller shafts, which pass through the bulkheads between the compartments through theoretically watertight openings (known as stuffing tubes or stuffing boxes) that should prevent progressive flooding. >> Based on crew interviews, authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly, jeopardising the watertightness of the ship. The investigation report warned that the faults that sunk the Ingstad could also be in other Navantia ships, raising questions about a possible problem with the design.
- jabl 8y ago
  If the prop shaft or the hull is bent due to the collision, the stuffing boxes would not seal? Then again, with a glancing blow to the side of the ship, this should not happen?
  - close04 8y ago
    Sure, there are plenty of reasons a good design might still fail. But while further investigation might be necessary, the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision. It doesn't look like they're trying to pass the blame. The ship may have been still able to stay afloat after the collision assuming the seals worked as expected.

timonoko 8y ago

One solution might be allowing false identities in Marine Traffic aka AIS for navy and coast guard ships. They could claim to be civilian ships of same size. Especially while kayaking in Norway the AIS is essential, as bigger ships do not have any methods to detect kayaks except visual.

timonoko 8y ago
They could use ID's of decommissioned ships. Or ID's of ships with only seasonal use. The problem is that smugglers and spies soon learn those false ID's if they are not changed frequently.
- tom_mellior 8y ago
  Or they could just frickin' identify themselves, in peacetime, in their own waters.
  - timonoko 8y ago
    No in Norway they cannot. The Coast Guard is after Russian Vodka Smugglers and the Navy is watching for Russian Sneak Attack. It does not work if the enemy knows where you are.
    - murderfs 8y ago
      It presumably doesn't work very well if you get run over by an oil tanker, though...
martin_bech 8y ago
That sounds a lot like a war crime. Military cant impersonate civilians, as it would open up to the targeting of civilians. •simulation of civilian status because civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities must be respected and may not be the object of attack (see Rules 1 and 6);[29]
mcv 8y ago
During peaceful maneuvers in busy civilian traffic, they should simply be honest about who and what they are. Safety depends on it.

spanxx 8y ago

How can you not see a big ship coming towards you even at night? I mean don't you see it's lights. Furthermore, they were warned repeatedly by radio. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but I can't help but think how they can be so incompetent? I'm afraid there is a worrying trend in these kind of accidents to deflect the blame to the electronics/software. Isn't your job to keep the car/ship/vehicle intact? Technology is there to help you but not to do your job.

oh_sigh 8y ago
Apparently, because the docks have a bunch of lights on them as well, obscuring the ship lights.
- varjag 8y ago
  It's a 2009 commissioned stealth frigate, with every navigational aid you can think of (AIS, a range of radars, visible light and FLIR cameras) on the bridge. They also had repeated warnings over the radio.
  - tremon 8y ago
    I'm not sure if the radio transmission from https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ (linked already in various comments) is accurate, but if so, there were no warnings over the radio. Instead, they were directed to change heading but not informed why. I don't speak Norsk, but it seems like the first time "collision course" is mentioned is at 04:01:08, ten seconds before impact.
    - varjag 8y ago
      The first call to the warship was 03:10, some 1:20 before the collision. Followed by two warnings they are on collision course. Let's see it from a different perspective too. The oil tanker captain was able to identify an unknown vessel (with disabled transponder) as warship, guess its type and infer its name, determine the collision is imminent and warn them multiple times. This suggests absolutely inept crew on the frigate's bridge.

goodcanadian 8y ago

There are a lot of good comments on this story. What stood out to me in the article, however, was that they thought the lights on the tanker were part of the port. Sounds like a bit of a stupid mistake in the context of what other commenters are saying, but fine, whatever, you thought they were lights of the port. Why on Earth did you ram the port at 17 knots? EDIT: Yes, I understand they didn't think it was moving, but it would have been obviously close to their line of travel. A bit of caution would have been appropriate.

rangibaby 8y ago
It’s probably one of those things where everyone thought everyone else would notice that the port was actually another boat
- Tor3 8y ago
  Yeah, apperently there were 7 people on the bridge.. way too many. Everything becomes "somebody else knows what's going on".
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Isn't the hierarchy of command specifically made to avoid that. "I thought someone else was in charge" doesn't seem possible on a plane/ship, and certainly not a military one.
gnud 8y ago
I guess they knew where they were, and how far away the port was. When the tanker was a fair distance away, they mistook it for the port, even further away. When they got closer to the tanker, it was too late.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
noselasd 8y ago
That is one of the strange part in this - they got multiple warnings many minutes ahead about being on a collision course. The very thing one would expect in such a situation is to slow down, and get an overview of the situation.

raubtier 8y ago

Feminism caused the collision? http://freewestmedia.com/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-helge-ingstad/ http://freewestmedia.com/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-... Funny.

vegardx 8y ago
Funny how the pictured crew widely circulated on pages like these wasn't even on the ship. Norwegian Royal Navy has had women serving as captains for a couple of decades. This isn't something new, the only thing that has changed in recent years is that conscription is mandatory for everyone.
- raubtier 8y ago
  Don't see your point. You can bet that it's quite unique to have 4 out of 5 female navigation officers. They brag about it a lot. One wonder how much affirmative action was needed to get them their. Hopefully none. There is a chance that the investagation is done thoroughly because this is quite serious, then it will show if not classified.
  - Tor3 8y ago
    What on earth has that got to do with this case? The radio operator and the navigator on the bridge weren't female.

rkangel 8y ago

Can someone please explain to me how a ship hits another ship that is showing full AIS? I have no understanding of what it's like on the bridge of a ship like that and would appreciate some insight. Surely they have a radar plot of themselves and their vector with the other ship, with a point of closest approach readout (ideally connected to an alarm). As a recreational sailor on a 28' yacht that's what we have, and monitoring that in shipping lanes is the priority. Can someone with understanding explain how this (to me) basic precaution might not happen on a professional naval ship with multiple bridge crew? For me, lets ignore the whole 'should the navy show AIS', and 'the ship was difficult to see because of lighting', not identifying a collision AIS vector seems like a single egregious failure.

pfortuny 8y ago
Bad training. Seeing as I see the training “engineers” are getting nowadays in Spain I am not surprised at all these events happen.
amitparikh 8y ago
> "The Sola TS became concerned about the situation. However, because the Ingstad wasn’t showing automatic identification system (AIS) data, initially neither the Sola TS nor the traffic station on shore could identify the frigate to warn it of the imminent danger."
- maaaats 8y ago
  That doesn't answer the question (why no one on Ingstad saw the tanker on AIS)
- simonh 8y ago
  Yes, but the Sola TS was showing AIS data, so how come the Frigate didn't see it on their plot?
mjlee 8y ago
I agree, this looks like a failure of the bridge crew. Any modern radar can be configured to show CPA based on AIS and on the radar tracks. They can also be configured with an audible/visual alert. The radar was either ignored or misconfigured, both of which are bridge crew problems.

donalhunt 8y ago

On the positive side, it sounds like there was very little damage to the tanker which would have had a devastating impact to the environment had it leaked its contents / sunk.

mcv 8y ago
Absolutely. When I hear about a collision between a warship and an oil tanker, I'd expect the warship to rip straight through the oil tanker, with devastating results. It's an unintended benefit of flimsy modern warships, I guess. But it'd be better if they actually watched where they're going.
- dagw 8y ago
  When I hear about a collision between a warship and an oil tanker, I'd expect the warship to rip straight through the oil tanker, with devastating results. I think you're seriously underestimating how big and heavy oil tanker are. The oil tanker in this case weighed roughly 20 times (with cargo) what the warship did. From the warships point of view they might as well have rammed an island.
  - mcv 8y ago
    I don't doubt the tanker is big, but I'd expect it to be a lot less armored, and built as cheaply as possible. In any case, I'm glad my expectations are wrong.
    - Tor3 8y ago
      Modern tankers have double hulls, to avoid (or trying to avoid) disastrous oil spills in case of accidents. In addition to other strengthening measures. Quite the opposite of built as cheap as possible. Warships, on the other hand, are often built for speed, and something has to give. I remember visiting a (smaller) warship once, it could reach 40 knots, and it had a normal hull (not a catamaran or trimaran). The crew said the whole ship was made of very lightweight material.
    - 8y ago

sytelus 8y ago

Is it really the case that all these bazillion dollar ships are made without simple front radar that even Honda Civic comes equipped with? Also, no $500 nighvision for person on the watch?

jonsen 8y ago

“...Cognition in the Wild, a detailed study of distributed cognitive processes in a navy ship...”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins

yason 8y ago

I do wonder: - Why approaching something thought to be a fixed construction didn't trigger any alarms, mechanical or mental? It doesn't matter if the "tanker" was a stationary part of the harbour or a moving vessel because just looking at the change in their relative positions would have indicated a collision course regardless. - I suppose ships still have radars? Looking at a dot or an edge coming closer and closer on the radar screen should ring some bells. - The tanker had their identification transponder on as expected: why did not the military vessel get red lights flashing somewhere even if they chose to not turn on theirs? - Don't ships have any means to communicate emergencies? If the tanker couldn't contact the frigate by radio wouldn't the ship have deck lights or search lights or something that they could starting flashing, as a last resort, as soon as they observed that the frigate would in fact collide with the tanker's course? Heck, couldn't they even shoot flares at the frigate if that's really what it takes? In the air, accidents usually happen these days because of several things go wrong in sequence. Everything is basically covered for either in procedures or by technology but given enough unlucky sequential failures in various systems makes it possible for something fatal to happen, and sometimes it does. In contrast, and based on a couple of articles, this sounds like a trivial blunder. Is there a more comprehensive failure analysis still being worked on, and to be published later? EDIT: The tanker apparently did manage to contact the fregate by radio. And still they didn't "get it". I would like to see a more substantial breakdown of the causes rather than mere incompetence. Norwegians have lived and breathed the sea for ages, I generally do trust their ability to navigate a ship.

mjlee 8y ago
Ships have a siren (big horn). 5 short blasts is "you're about to hit me". The tanker absolutely should have sounded that as soon as it became apparent that something was wrong. They also absolutely have radars, and normally ones that will sound an alarm when a collision is possible. I suspect the bridge crew disabled the alarm in this case.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  The tanker was already in contact over radio with the frigate. Voice comms (when established) are better than horns.

alkonaut 8y ago

I get how they could be confused, not paying attention. But here they are communicating. This wasn't two ships not noticing the danger, (then we should discuss whether tech didn't help). Here one ship DID notice it and even communicated with the other ship. The only viable explanation for that is a) That kind of thing happens dozens of times per day so when it's actually a dangerous situation it's not registered as such (crying wolf), or b) complete sensory overload so that the "umm...yeah...ok" response is from someone who isn't really paying attention to what they are hearing. Also: my several years old car will scream with alarms if I'm closing on an obstacle, and eventually even start handling the danger for me (if I don't react to silence the alarm). I have to assume the same systems exist for a huge expensive warship. So not only was the AIS turned off - all collision alarms etc were too? Were they practicing some kind of stealth operation where they run without ANY active RF?

jzwinck 8y ago
> my several years old car will scream with alarms if I'm closing on an obstacle, and eventually even start handling the danger for me. I have to assume the same systems exist for a huge expensive warship. So not only was the AIS turned off - all collision alarms etc were too? I don't know how the military systems work, but I have used civilian maritime systems like the AIS you mention, some of which are built by semi-military manufacturers. Let me tell you, AIS is no silver bullet. AIS does indeed alert us when another ship is within a predefined radius. But it does not judge whether the distance is closing or widening. If a ship passes perpendicular to our course but less than the defined radius behind us, we get an alarm--exactly the same alarm as if it were directly in front of us and moving toward us. There is no feature like "alert 10 minutes before expected collision." Also, AIS has a feature where you can send messages as a broadcast to all nearby ships. The message you send could be "SOS SINKING 12 SOULS" or it could be "SATURN MICKEY WELCOME TO SALVADOR PORT" (a real one I saw last week with the names changed). The alarm at receiving stations will sound the same in both cases. In busy shipping lanes there are multiple of these messages received per day by passers by, and several obviously-not-dangerous proximity alerts at the very least. You can imagine why people might be inclined to turn them off.
- 8y ago

jhellan 8y ago

You can find the preliminary investigation report here: https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25573&pid=SHT-Report-Attachments.Native-InnerFile-File&attach=1 https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25573&p... Interim safety recommendations: https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25575&pid=SHT-Report-Attachments.Native-InnerFile-File&attach=1 https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25575&p... From the (civilian) Accident Investigation Board. Their investigation continues. In parallell, there is a police investigation, and presumably a navy one.

walrus01 8y ago

Considering the accuracy of the radar systems (and dozens of millions of dollars spent on them) mounted on a modern frigate or destroyer, a warship crew should REALLY NOT be reliant upon other vessels' AIS to avoid collisions. Warships are maneuverable and fast. Physical failings of the ship aside, I think there's something wrong with the complacency of the crew training.

Symmetry 8y ago

It looks like a big contributing factor in the recent US destroyer collision was lack of sleep on the part of the crew. Are Norwegian crews also chronically sleep deprived?

pseudolus 8y ago

Is the frigate a write-off or are there any plans to refloat and repair?

anonu 8y ago

Interesting article and there are always better precautions and procedures that can be put in place. I am uncertain about the claims of "far-reaching implications". (a bit click-baity perhaps?) Depends on your perspective I suppose...

aaronmdjones 8y ago
I gather the far-reaching implications are that a lot of other ships may be similarly mis-designed (to prevent the progression of internal flooding); as the article says.

csense 8y ago

HN discussion of US Navy's collision issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077072 Somehow between the invention of ships in 10,000 BC or whatever and the modern day, we've lost the ability to keep them from running into each other.