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

171–180 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#171

Post by rpeden »

alkonaut wrote: post #139
jzwinck wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sem…

If I understand correctly, AIS is only a transponder like system, so self-reported positions? If you compare to any commercial airliner you have transponder for communicating some things, but you also have collision alarms such as the one screaming "TERRAIN" or "PULL UP" if you are about to smack into the ground. That system is a ground radar of some kind. On a car the navigation system is also separate from the fron…

There's also TCAS, which is transponder based and will negotiate with nearby aircraft also equipped with transponders - so if there's a collision risk, the TCAS in one aircraft will be saying "climb, climb" and TCAS in the other aircraft will be saying "descend, descend".

Or both TCASes might be saying "traffic, traffic" if someone else is nearby, and not on a collision course, but could end up on a collision course if one or both parties make course or altitude changes. So in this case it's a heads up to look for traffic nearby.

This doesn't take away from anything you said; I just wanted to point out that a solution based solely on self-reported positions can be quite effective too.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#172

Post by yardie »

jzwinck wrote: post #130
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 sem…

> 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.

I've used civilian AIS systems and I can assure you they can do exactly as you describe. It's called closest point of approach (CPA and TCPA)

> AIS has a feature where you can send messages as a broadcast to all nearby ships.

Consumer AIS does not do this. You are referring to DSC.

A consumer marine DSC/AIS VHF radio can send and receive DSC, receive AIS, and, if they have enough screen/CPU, can show CPA/TCPA tracks. For ocean passages we set our TCPA for 30 minutes and in port 2 minutes.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#173

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Tor3 wrote: post #114
rangibaby wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably one of those things where everyone thought everyone else would notice that the port was actually another boat

Yeah, apperently there were 7 people on the bridge.. way too many. Everything becomes "somebody else knows what's going on".

Isn't the hierarchy of command specifically made to avoid that. "I thought someone else was in charge" doesn't seem possible on a plane/ship, and certainly not a military one.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#174

Post by CydeWeys »

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…

Would bringing back the crow's nest make more sense? A lot of ships still have masts for varying reasons.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#175

Post by sovande »

elcapitan wrote: post #140
remarkEon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really cool, thanks. I’m actualy pretty surprised how much of the Norwegian language I could imply into English there. It wasn’t that hard to follow along on that map. Context matters a lot, I guess.

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.

Styrbord is not germanic, but old norse and literary means the rudder (i.e. steering board), which, as you said, was located on the right side of the ship. Viking ships could therefore only dock on the left-side, hence port for the port side.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#176

Post by tokai »

sovande wrote: post #175
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.

Styrbord is not germanic, but old norse and literary means the rudder (i.e. steering board), which, as you said, was located on the right side of the ship. Viking ships could therefore only dock on the left-side, hence port for the port side.

Old Norse is a germanic language.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#177

Post by CydeWeys »

mjlee wrote: post #120
yason wrote: post #115

I do wonder: - Why approaching something thought to be a fixed construction didn't trigger any alarms, mechanical or mental? It doesn't matter if the "tanker" was a stationary part of the harbour or a moving vessel because just looking at the change in their relative positions would have indicated a collision course regardless. - I suppose ships still have radars? Looking at a dot or an edge coming closer and closer…

Ships have a siren (big horn). 5 short blasts is "you're about to hit me". The tanker absolutely should have sounded that as soon as it became apparent that something was wrong. They also absolutely have radars, and normally ones that will sound an alarm when a collision is possible. I suspect the bridge crew disabled the alarm in this case.

The tanker was already in contact over radio with the frigate. Voice comms (when established) are better than horns.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#178

Post by aaronmdjones »

anonu wrote: post #163

Interesting article and there are always better precautions and procedures that can be put in place. I am uncertain about the claims of "far-reaching implications". (a bit click-baity perhaps?) Depends on your perspective I suppose...

I gather the far-reaching implications are that a lot of other ships may be similarly mis-designed (to prevent the progression of internal flooding); as the article says.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#180

Post by ordu »

jonasmst wrote: post #78
benj111 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery" Google is failing me. Is this a Norwegian saying, or a mistranslation?

Norwegian here. Indeed, "Krigsskipet gjør først en unnamanøver i siste liten", means "The war ship initially performs a last-minute evasive maneuver". Skimming this, I dismissed kidney robbery as some navy lingo I'm not familiar with, but it's a really bizarre error in translation.

> Norwegian here.

Just curious.

Is 'unnamanøver' used in Norwegian in figurative sense, like, for example, to describe action of a fiction hero which got into difficult situation and performs a sudden creative action which leads to a success?

Is 'unnamanøver' is a relatively uncommon word which is not frequently used?

I suggesting it because it can explain the mistake of google-translate based on AI. If in a course of learning AI met this word just a few times and in all occurences word was used not in the direct meaning but in figurative one, then it can be confusing. It can confuse not just artifical intelligence, but a nature one also, Though human probably wouldn't miss that 'unnamanøver' contains 'manøver' which brings associations with 'maneuver'.

Post reply on HN