Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
aspistrategist.org.au
Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
1–10 of 210 posts
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#2It 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.)
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#3One 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.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#4One 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 sh…
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.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#5The 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?
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#6One 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 sh…
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.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#7One 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 sh…
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.
It was also a few minutes after a shift change too.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#8This site has a great animation of the crash, including the leaked radio communications:
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.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#9One 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 sh…
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.
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..."
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#10Saying this has "far-reaching implications" sits with me as click bait.