Feminism caused the collision?
http://freewestmedia.com/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-...
Funny.
Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
81–90 of 210 posts
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#82There 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,…
It’s probably one of those things where everyone thought everyone else would notice that the port was actually another boat
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#83There 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,…
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.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#84There 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,…
[deleted]
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#85Google 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…
"The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery" Google is failing me. Is this a Norwegian saying, or a mistranslation?
[deleted]
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they could just frickin' identify themselves, in peacetime, in their own waters.
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.
It presumably doesn't work very well if you get run over by an oil tanker, though...
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#87Older 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 steal…
I believe the Royal Navy was about the last to be keen on open bridges - sure I read somewhere that it was only the threat of nuclear fallout the convinced them that it was better to be inside.
Worth reading someone like Nicholas Monsarrat for what an open bridge on a small ship in the North Atlantic could be like - utter misery!
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 co…
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?
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.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#89There 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,…
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.
Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 piersi…
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.
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.