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…
Bad training. Seeing as I see the training “engineers” are getting nowadays in Spain I am not surprised at all these events happen.
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.
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.
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.
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…
> "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."
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.
During peaceful maneuvers in busy civilian traffic, they should simply be honest about who and what they are. Safety depends on it.
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…
> "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."
That doesn't answer the question (why no one on Ingstad saw the tanker on AIS)
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…
While your narrative is a compelling one, I do not see how it maps to the sequence of events leading up to the collision. According to the investigation, Sola TS was mistaken to be a stationary object further away, and the warning received over radio was believed to come from one of the outer portside ships. If that was the information I had at hand, I would not turn starboard either.
As a ham operator the thing I noticed was the missing identification from the party talking.. just 'Helge Ingstad, turn starboard'. And so on. Never a 'Helge Ingstad, this is Sola <"on course so-and-so, speed so-and-so"..'.
Helge Instad didn't (according to the report, and no wonder) understand who they were talking to. Not that the personnel on board Helge Ingstad were much better.
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.
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.
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.
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…
> "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."
Yes, but the Sola TS was showing AIS data, so how come the Frigate didn't see it on their plot?
They were traveling at 17 knots in a busy channel at night. That alone seems crazy.
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.
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.
Isn't "while further investigation might be necessary" incompatible with "the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision." or is it just me?
Think of them as statements of probabilities. "while further investigation might be necessary to be 100% certain, the authorities determined that there his a high probability that the design is to blame for the sinking not the collision."
How certain should you be that there is a serious design flaw in a product before you feel it's warranted to warn others who own that product that there might be a problem.