7 ms·

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 proces

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.
    - zentiggr 8y ago
      This - my time as control room crew on a sub, we knew we were in for as long a maneuvering watch as we had to stand, to get from open water to a pier or vice versa. Only in very unusual circumstances did the watchstanders rotate, with the exception of the helmsman and his relief. Especially not Sonar, Fire Control, Radar and the Quaartermaster. If that discipline has broken down, ah, crap, may as well leave em pierside, or you're just pushing around REALLY expensive bumper cars.
      - hansthehorse 8y ago
        Surface nuclear ops here. Served in the engine room of a nuclear destoyer in the 70s and early 80's. We did not relieve the watch leaving port until we cleared into open water. Same with proceding to dock. You stayed until done. When docking the crew that would have relieved the engine room assisted in pulling shore power cables then went to relieve the watch and shut down the reactors and engine room.
        seszett 8y ago
        I'm just speculating here, but I don't think the Norwegian navy actually operates as if it could potentially be in combat situation at any time. Not sure if what I'm saying is clear (and I don't have the correct terms, especially in English) but on French navy ships and I guess on US ships as well, the general ambiance is that the situation is always serious and whatever operation is done as if it was in the context of combat. I have been on a few ships of "less relevant" navies (no offense but the Australian or South African navies just see less action) and there the whole crew was usually more relaxed and would behave more casually with regards to unforeseen events. This is not criticism, but I think frequent action does help with keeping discipline, while infrequent action makes it easy to slip into more comfortable routine.
pdonis 8y ago
I agree, the problem is not the high tech equipment but faulty watchstanding practice. Whoever is driving the ship should not be looking at the high tech gear, they should be looking where the ship is going. Other watchstanders can feed that person information from the high tech gear if needed.
- varjag 8y ago
  If they actually looked at their high tech gear, they'd seen the AIS marker of the tanker on their course.
GeorgeO84 8y ago
>the sailors were distracted who was the captain? was a special crew?
expertentipp 8y ago
Maybe the displays were displaying an unskippable ad?
- vasili111 8y ago
  They do not use uBlock Origin???
sinuhe69 8y ago
The sacking of the US Pacific commander says a lot about the discipline and practice of military crewmen in modern armies nowadays, in a world of 50 years and more of enduring peace.
davedx 8y ago
I toured a Norwegian coast guard vessel once. The bridge really wasn’t any more equipment filled than a merchant ship, in fact the place the pilot sat had the modern joystick/bow thruster arrangement like modern aircraft have. It looked like good UX to me. I really wonder what happened here
- vasili111 8y ago
  I think there will be much difference in tech equipment between Frigate and Coast Guard ship. The Frigate will have more advanced technical equipment than Coast Guard ship.
  - mjlee 8y ago
    Perhaps not. Frigates take a long time to plan and execute, a Coast Guard ship is comparatively more agile. It's not unfeasible that the bridge on a ship going in to service today would have been designed 10 years ago.
Lewton 8y ago
High tech bridge computers = smartphones? :D
skookumchuck 8y ago
In piloting aircraft, too, it pays to look out the window now and then.
- t0mas88 8y ago
  It does. And then in aircraft there are actually controllers to help us and a little box shouting "traffic, traffic" about 40 seconds before things go wrong. Followed by automated resolution advice if things are really going wrong. Thinking about it, isn't it strange that ships don't have a TCAS-like system to warn for predicted collisions?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    The radars I used almost 30 years ago on merchant ships certainly had collision alerts! But I was also trained that there had to be at least one person on the watch whose sole job was to look out for other ships.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      There's no substitute for looking out the window ("Iceberg, right ahead!"). The automated systems are fine as backups because people make misteaks.
jabl 8y ago
> I have trouble understanding how this works - what is your high tech bridge gear showing you if not the surrounding area? Candy Crush?
mannykannot 8y ago
Furthermore, as modern surface warships, with all their technology, are having trouble avoiding lumbering merchant ships, what does that imply about their ability in a hostile environment? Is it that modern threats are so fast, stealthy, autonomous and long-range that ship-handling would be largely irrelevant in combat?
- Symmetry 8y ago
  Modern surface warfare involves firing cruise missiles from over 100 miles away. Ship handling is involved to the extent that you need to turn to bring your point defense systems to bear but you don't expect there to be obstacles anywhere nearby.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  A huge part of the problem is that the crew lets down their guard in friendly waters making these collisions possible. In a combat environment no unidentified ship would been able to get nearly as close without getting some holes put in it.

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.
  - zentiggr 8y ago
    This - my time as control room crew on a sub, we knew we were in for as long a maneuvering watch as we had to stand, to get from open water to a pier or vice versa. Only in very unusual circumstances did the watchstanders rotate, with the exception of the helmsman and his relief. Especially not Sonar, Fire Control, Radar and the Quaartermaster. If that discipline has broken down, ah, crap, may as well leave em pierside, or you're just pushing around REALLY expensive bumper cars.
    - hansthehorse 8y ago
      Surface nuclear ops here. Served in the engine room of a nuclear destoyer in the 70s and early 80's. We did not relieve the watch leaving port until we cleared into open water. Same with proceding to dock. You stayed until done. When docking the crew that would have relieved the engine room assisted in pulling shore power cables then went to relieve the watch and shut down the reactors and engine room.
      - seszett 8y ago
        I'm just speculating here, but I don't think the Norwegian navy actually operates as if it could potentially be in combat situation at any time. Not sure if what I'm saying is clear (and I don't have the correct terms, especially in English) but on French navy ships and I guess on US ships as well, the general ambiance is that the situation is always serious and whatever operation is done as if it was in the context of combat. I have been on a few ships of "less relevant" navies (no offense but the Australian or South African navies just see less action) and there the whole crew was usually more relaxed and would behave more casually with regards to unforeseen events. This is not criticism, but I think frequent action does help with keeping discipline, while infrequent action makes it easy to slip into more comfortable routine.

pdonis 8y ago

I agree, the problem is not the high tech equipment but faulty watchstanding practice. Whoever is driving the ship should not be looking at the high tech gear, they should be looking where the ship is going. Other watchstanders can feed that person information from the high tech gear if needed.

varjag 8y ago
If they actually looked at their high tech gear, they'd seen the AIS marker of the tanker on their course.

GeorgeO84 8y ago

>the sailors were distracted who was the captain? was a special crew?

expertentipp 8y ago

Maybe the displays were displaying an unskippable ad?

vasili111 8y ago
They do not use uBlock Origin???

sinuhe69 8y ago

The sacking of the US Pacific commander says a lot about the discipline and practice of military crewmen in modern armies nowadays, in a world of 50 years and more of enduring peace.

davedx 8y ago

I toured a Norwegian coast guard vessel once. The bridge really wasn’t any more equipment filled than a merchant ship, in fact the place the pilot sat had the modern joystick/bow thruster arrangement like modern aircraft have. It looked like good UX to me. I really wonder what happened here

vasili111 8y ago
I think there will be much difference in tech equipment between Frigate and Coast Guard ship. The Frigate will have more advanced technical equipment than Coast Guard ship.
- mjlee 8y ago
  Perhaps not. Frigates take a long time to plan and execute, a Coast Guard ship is comparatively more agile. It's not unfeasible that the bridge on a ship going in to service today would have been designed 10 years ago.

Lewton 8y ago

High tech bridge computers = smartphones? :D

skookumchuck 8y ago

In piloting aircraft, too, it pays to look out the window now and then.

t0mas88 8y ago
It does. And then in aircraft there are actually controllers to help us and a little box shouting "traffic, traffic" about 40 seconds before things go wrong. Followed by automated resolution advice if things are really going wrong. Thinking about it, isn't it strange that ships don't have a TCAS-like system to warn for predicted collisions?
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  The radars I used almost 30 years ago on merchant ships certainly had collision alerts! But I was also trained that there had to be at least one person on the watch whose sole job was to look out for other ships.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    There's no substitute for looking out the window ("Iceberg, right ahead!"). The automated systems are fine as backups because people make misteaks.

jabl 8y ago

> I have trouble understanding how this works - what is your high tech bridge gear showing you if not the surrounding area? Candy Crush?

mannykannot 8y ago

Furthermore, as modern surface warships, with all their technology, are having trouble avoiding lumbering merchant ships, what does that imply about their ability in a hostile environment? Is it that modern threats are so fast, stealthy, autonomous and long-range that ship-handling would be largely irrelevant in combat?

Symmetry 8y ago
Modern surface warfare involves firing cruise missiles from over 100 miles away. Ship handling is involved to the extent that you need to turn to bring your point defense systems to bear but you don't expect there to be obstacles anywhere nearby.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
A huge part of the problem is that the crew lets down their guard in friendly waters making these collisions possible. In a combat environment no unidentified ship would been able to get nearly as close without getting some holes put in it.