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

131–140 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#131

Post by i_am_proteus »

zentiggr wrote: post #25
pdonis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This in itself is a red flag: you should not be changing the watch during transit of a heavy traffic area. You do that well before you get into the heavy traffic area, and you put your highest skilled watchstanders on the bridge, so they have both the experience to handle heavy traffic and the time to build proper situational awareness before the heavy traffic builds up.

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…

This. The watch in that situation would be the A-team, and wouldn't get relieved until the ship is in a lower-traffic area. That watch team would also brief the entire transit for expected hazards, i.e. "watch for tankers leaving the terminal." But also, a sub on the surface puts the conning officer on the bridge, which provides insanely good situational awareness compared to just having a periscope.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#132

Post by Tor3 »

mcv wrote: post #122
dagw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Modern tankers have double hulls, to avoid (or trying to avoid) disastrous oil spills in case of accidents. In addition to other strengthening measures. Quite the opposite of built as cheap as possible. Warships, on the other hand, are often built for speed, and something has to give. I remember visiting a (smaller) warship once, it could reach 40 knots, and it had a normal hull (not a catamaran or trimaran). The crew said the whole ship was made of very lightweight material.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#133

Post by dagw »

mcv wrote: post #122
dagw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt they put much armor or modern warships, as speed and maneuverability is probably a far more important asset and modern munitions could probably punch through any reasonable armor you could put on a ship and still make it sail.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#134

Post by Tor3 »

varjag wrote: post #128
Tor3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, absolutely. The captain has responsibility. It's just that they're not that often on the bridge anymore. That demands a certain level of competence and trust as far as the bridge crew is concerned, of course.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#135

Post by jhellan »

You can find the preliminary investigation report here: https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25573&p... Interim safety recommendations: https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25575&p...

From the (civilian) Accident Investigation Board. Their investigation continues. In parallell, there is a police investigation, and presumably a navy one.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#136

Post by Tor3 »

dagw wrote: post #127
Tor3 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tan…

Well.. those other ships weren't really on their right (at that time). They were on their left (as can be seen on the video of the radar monitoring). The reason stated by Helge Ingstad's radio operator for not turning starboard was because of some reefs to their starboard. At the time of the crash those reefs were still 750m away (to starboard) though.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#137

Post by Tor3 »

raubtier wrote: post #119
vegardx wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how the pictured crew widely circulated on pages like these wasn't even on the ship. Norwegian Royal Navy has had women serving as captains for a couple of decades. This isn't something new, the only thing that has changed in recent years is that conscription is mandatory for everyone.

Don't see your point. You can bet that it's quite unique to have 4 out of 5 female navigation officers. They brag about it a lot. One wonder how much affirmative action was needed to get them their. Hopefully none. There is a chance that the investagation is done thoroughly because this is quite serious, then it will show if not classified.

What on earth has that got to do with this case? The radio operator and the navigator on the bridge weren't female.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#138

Post by dagw »

Tor3 wrote: post #136
dagw wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tan…

Well.. those other ships weren't really on their right (at that time). They were on their left (as can be seen on the video of the radar monitoring). The reason stated by Helge Ingstad's radio operator for not turning starboard was because of some reefs to their starboard. At the time of the crash those reefs were still 750m away (to starboard) though.

They were on their left

You are of course completely right. I apparently can't read maps or forgotten which hand is which :)

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#139

Post by alkonaut »

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…

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 front collision avoidance radar thing that will scream at you if you are about to hit a slower car in your lane.

So from a lay persons perspective it seems absolutely insane that a warship wouldn't have several radar and sonar based collision avoidance systems in addition to (or perhaps working together with) any transponder/GPS (AIS) systems.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#140

Post by elcapitan »

remarkEon wrote: post #22
kristofferR wrote: post #8

This site has a great animation of the crash, including the leaked radio communications: https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ Click "Helge Ingstad natt" to see the POV from the frigate. "Styrbord" means starboard/right, that's basically all the Norwegian you need to know.

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.
Post reply on HN