Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

aspistrategist.org.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#121

Post by mjlee »

rkangel wrote: post #93

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…

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.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#122

Post by mcv »

dagw wrote: post #107
mcv wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#123

Post by alkonaut »

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?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#124

Post by mjlee »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #11

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 steal…

I've done watches on both. When you're really exhausted a flying bridge is somewhat invigorating as you'd expect.

I still think an enclosed bridge is better all round. You can have the tools and reference materials you need at hand and have a reasonably comfortable environment which reduces fatigue - a serious problem when you can't just pull over and stop for a nap.

You can still head out to the bridge wings to get some fresh air and have a look around every few minutes, which is what I used to do.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#125

Post by mjlee »

vasili111 wrote: post #36
davedx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#126

Post by mjlee »

Spooky23 wrote: post #6
ALittleLight wrote: post #3

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 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.

The light distraction thing has been taken into account on all ships I've been on, including warships. Everything that can be dimmed is dimmed, normally to the point where it's not really usable without a hood or turning up the brightness when you need it.

Everything that can't be dimmed gets a curtain made up for it.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#127

Post by dagw »

Tor3 wrote: post #118
dagw wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#128

Post by varjag »

Tor3 wrote: post #117
varjag wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does appear to be the case of gross incompetence. In Norwegian newspapers comments section, most seamen and former Navy tend to suggest just that. This is Norway though. In many other places the captain would be court martialed for that. Here he'd have his promotion delayed a few years at worst.

The captain was not at the bridge during the situation though. He was off shift. He came to the bridge after the collision, and took over the radio communication. Very apparent in the way the communication was handled (after the crash).

The captain runs the ship and is in charge of the crew. It's the ultimate authority that comes with ultimate responsibility. If the crew was not seaworthy, letting it sail out if the port is the captain's fault.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#129

Post by mjlee »

timonoko wrote: post #48

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.

Spoofing AIS is a common practice.

It's not unusual to see a "Warship" on AIS - especially when navigating in crowded areas.

Ex: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:45...

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:56...

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#130

Post by jzwinck »

alkonaut wrote: post #123

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 s…

> 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.

Post reply on HN