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

161–170 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#161

Post by varjag »

tremon wrote: post #145
varjag wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a 2009 commissioned stealth frigate, with every navigational aid you can think of (AIS, a range of radars, visible light and FLIR cameras) on the bridge. They also had repeated warnings over the radio.

I'm not sure if the radio transmission from https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ (linked already in various comments) is accurate, but if so, there were no warnings over the radio. Instead, they were directed to change heading but not informed why. I don't speak Norsk, but it seems like the first time "collision course" is mentioned is at 04:01:08, ten seconds before impact.

The first call to the warship was 03:10, some 1:20 before the collision. Followed by two warnings they are on collision course.

Let's see it from a different perspective too. The oil tanker captain was able to identify an unknown vessel (with disabled transponder) as warship, guess its type and infer its name, determine the collision is imminent and warn them multiple times. This suggests absolutely inept crew on the frigate's bridge.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#164

Post by flurdy »

dagw wrote: post #116
flurdy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fast, but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise. I would assume higher speed and quicker decisions are a normal part of that type of training. That I think is why there were American officers as well on the bridge at the time of the incident as part of cross training. Which is then disheartening to hear the Maltese registered, Greek owned tankship…

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.

Initial comments from the Navy was that they were going back to port (Haakonsvern), but they later corrected that as wrong. They instead admitted the frigate was instead travelling to another part of the NATO exercise and was using the inland route as training.

https://www.bt.no/nyheter/i/OnOLWO/Forsvaret-beklager-feilin...

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#165

Post by t0mas88 »

skookumchuck wrote: post #45
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…

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

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?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#166

Post by varjag »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #149
hansthehorse wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were traveling at 17 knots in a busy channel at night. That alone seems crazy.

And boats don't do emergency stops, or turns for that matter. If you haven't been out on a powerboat at night, I urge you to try it once. It can be extremely disorienting as often you have zero points of reference, the ability to judge distances is compromised and objects can be completely invisible either because of the darkness when away from the shore, or because of the bright background light pollution from onsho…

> As another poster wrote, this is the analogue of speeding on a busy highway with all your lights off and having a matte black car.

This is another thing that happens in Norway all the time.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#167

Post by spiralx »

spanxx wrote: post #52

How can you not see a big ship coming towards you even at night? I mean don't you see it's lights. Furthermore, they were warned repeatedly by radio. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but I can't help but think how they can be so incompetent? I'm afraid there is a worrying trend in these kind of accidents to deflect the blame to the electronics/software. Isn't your job to keep the car/ship/vehicle intact? Technology is ther…

You say that, but then again there's this book with all its amusing reviews:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/08...

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#168

Post by gvb »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #26

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.

Your Tesla doesn't always warn of impending collisions:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/07/tesla-m...

https://electrek.co/2016/11/29/tesla-model-s-crash-truck/

https://www.newsweek.com/autonomous-tesla-crashes-parked-fir...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/06/20/tesla-s...

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#169

Post by varjag »

pdonis wrote: post #18
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 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.

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

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#170

Post by elcapitan »

jacobush wrote: post #146
elcapitan wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the words are probably old German in origin, the modern German word "Steuerbord" means the same, "steuern" = to steer (see "styrboard", could also have become "steerboard" in English, instead of starboard). The nautic right side was called that way because on those old viking boats, the rudder was a big paddle on the right side.

old German ic if I may :)

That's actually not correct - Germanic is the name for the group, while actual languages are German. Old High German, Middle High German, etc.
Post reply on HN