
Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications - occamrazor
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/norwegian-frigate-sinking-has-far-reaching-implications/
======
kristofferR
This site has a great animation of the crash, including the leaked radio
communications:

[https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-
ulykken/](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.

~~~
remarkEon
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.

~~~
elcapitan
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.

~~~
sovande
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.

~~~
tokai
Old Norse is a germanic language.

~~~
elcapitan
Exactly, as are Old German and Old English - that's why I was pointing out the
Germanic relation there and the meaning behind the word :)

------
opwieurposiu
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 stealth and not
having to stand in the cold damp all night are worth the cost of an occasional
mishap.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bridge)

~~~
8bitsrule
They might have paid one sailor for _a lot_ of years for the cost of this
sinking.

~~~
nradov
They had sailors on lookout duty. But apparently the lookouts didn't
understand what they were seeing, or there was a breakdown in bridge resource
management.

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

~~~
short_sells_poo
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 onshore lights. In such
conditions, I want to take every piece of information about my surroundings
(e.g. radar, sonar and AIS), and make sure that others know where I am and
where I'm heading, so turning off the AIS in a busy shipping lane is
particularly questionable. 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.

~~~
varjag
> 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.

------
ALittleLight
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 ship scanner doesn't seem to matter.

In other words, I don't buy that the high tech gear getting in the way is the
issue. The issue is that nobody was watching where they were going by means
high or low tech, and thus they ran into something they shouldn't have.

~~~
Spooky23
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.

~~~
mjlee
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.

~~~
quickben
Interesting. What wouldn't be usually dimmable?

~~~
mjlee
Normally equipment that's still in development or is bought off the shelf[1].
Power LEDs on a laptop charger for example.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-
shelf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf)

~~~
belenos46
> Power LEDs on a laptop charger for example.

...Oh, right. The things under the electrical tape patch on my laptop :D

~~~
mjlee
Yeah, probably a bad example. A screen on a laptop that nobody has admin
rights on to properly dim might be a better case.

------
stcredzero
It seems that this frigate sunk much too easily for a warship because of a
failure of watertight compartmentalization. (Specifically, the part which
allows the propeller shaft to interpenetrate multiple compartments.) There
might be a parallel here with the Kursk. The watertight compartments were
supposed to be hardened against explosive over-pressure, but I remember seeing
a documentary where it was proposed that this hardness was compromised by
installations of new equipment. There is also speculation that one of the
watertight doors to the torpedo room wasn't even closed, which has parallels
with the HMS Hood. (Not all of the ammunition transport safety features were
used by the crew on the Hood.)

~~~
CoolGuySteve
Well certainly the front shouldn't have fell off I can tell you that much.

Hopefully they'll have removed the ship from the environment.

~~~
stcredzero
_Well certainly the front shouldn 't have fell off I can tell you that much._

Water is quite heavy and dense. When you are jacking around with differential
buoyancy, you're dealing with forces that can break the back of a ship. This
is how torpedoes often wreak the worst damage. The overpressure can lift a
part of the ship and break its back. Flooding the 1st 3rd or a ship could do
something similar.

------
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?

~~~
jzwinck
> 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.

~~~
alkonaut
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.

~~~
jzwinck
Yes, AIS shows self-reported positions. Basically it broadcasts your GPS
coordinates, your ship's name and other details, plus (unfortunately) any
random messages you want to send.

Ships have radar too. But my point here is not about sensors--the problem is
in the human-computer interface. We can see on the screen that a ship is (or
isn't) on a collision course with us, but the systems commonly installed on
civilian craft only tell us if another ship is inside our predefined circle.
And we have to make that circle fairly small when travelling in busy areas, or
there will be alarms at all times.

Another fun, dumb thing about AIS: it does not self-report anchor state. It is
a requirement that ships display a shape on their bow to indicate if they are
anchored. But there is no dissemination of such data in AIS. It would be
hugely useful to know the difference between a ship 0.5 NM away at anchor vs
underway. And just imagine if we are ourselves in a busy anchorage--we would
want an alarm if a ship underway is coming toward us, but not if a ship we are
anchored next to is still exactly where we left it.

It's not that we don't have sensors to know what we need to know. It's that
the displays and audible alerts are not ergonomically advantageous, and are
prone to fatiguing their users.

------
rkangel
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 monitoring that in shipping lanes is the
priority. Can someone with understanding explain how this (to me) basic
precaution might not happen on a professional naval ship with multiple bridge
crew?

For me, lets ignore the whole 'should the navy show AIS', and 'the ship was
difficult to see because of lighting', not identifying a collision AIS vector
seems like a single egregious failure.

~~~
amitparikh
> "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."

~~~
simonh
Yes, but the Sola TS was showing AIS data, so how come the Frigate didn't see
it on their plot?

------
donalhunt
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.

~~~
mcv
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.

~~~
dagw
_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.

~~~
mcv
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.

~~~
Tor3
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.

------
tartoran
Google transnation:

Could "Sola TS" do more? "Sola TS" still had the tire lights when they drove
out in the fjord, although ships should not light that obscures the visibility
of the red and green lanterns.

"Helge Ingstad" had noticed the lights that were the tanker and had plans to
take a boat and sail around (ie on the side towards the fjord, not on the side
towards the country). 3:58 AM said, "The Sola TS" captain is about to make a
10-degree change of course towards the fjord. A little after four o'clock,
after Helge Ingstad reported that they would not turn into land, "Sola TS" hit
the full hill in the machine. They put the ship in reverse, while the warship
came against them at the same high speed.

Why did they sail straight to the lights? A big question for the
Havarikommission is what is why the KNM "Helge Ingstad" sails right towards
the lights they think are part of the Sturerminal (but actually the tanker).
No matter what the lights are, that's something they're on a collision course
with.

The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery.

\- Why do not they turn away? No matter if they think it's a fixed object or a
ship?

\- That's what our survey will have to answer. We will look into how they used
their technical aids aboard the frigate and how the cooperation was on the
bridge, says Ytrehus in the Havarikommisjonen to VG.

Could the ship be saved? The frigate is built with a series of watertight
bulkheads that will prevent the boat from sinking. But the accident commission
has found two errors in the boat construction . During the crash the frigate
got a big flange in the side. Water flowed into the room with the generators
that make power to the vessel. And that would stop there. But instead, water
flows through a hollow propeller shaft and into the girder room. This is the
first mistake they have notified.

The damage About. 45 meters long cracked Adult man in scale Stock and cabins
aft generator- room aft machine- room gear room fore machine- room The second
mistake is that it does not stop there. Because when the girder room is also
filled with water, the water moves on to the aft and the farther engine room.

When do we get a final answer ?: The Hearing Commission has one year to
deliver its final report. The police investigate if there has been a criminal
offense during the accident, but the investigation will take time. The Armed
Forces have set up their own investigation commission, but even who is in the
commission is secret .

~~~
benj111
"The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery"

Google is failing me. Is this a Norwegian saying, or a mistranslation?

~~~
jonasmst
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.

~~~
Tor3
Not entirely correct.. the 'først', in this context, translates a bit
differently, something like "The war ship only performs a last-minute evasive
maneuver" \- which doesn't work that well in English.

So you have to turn the translated sentence around a bit: "The warship doesn't
perform an evasive maneuver until the last moment".

~~~
posterboy
Funny enough it does work the same in German and I never lexicalized "erst in
der letzten Minute" (only in the last minute) as from "das erste mal" (the
first time) and "erstmals" (first-time-ly). Figures that "only" is really
"one-ly", but maybe compares to Ger. "ohne" (without), Norse "on" ... English
"on" (without). Amazing.

> [only:] From Middle English oonly, onli, onlych, onelich, anely, from Old
> English ānlīċ, ǣnlīċ (“like; similar; equal”), from Proto-Germanic
> _ainalīkaz_ , equivalent to one +‎ -ly. Cognate with obsolete Dutch eenlijk,
> German ähnlich (“similar”), Old Norse álíkr, Swedish enlig (“unified”).

In light of the sentence in question, I wonder how "ähnlich" (similar)
compares to "endlich" (finally, surface analysis "end-ly", "ending")
historically: _The ship finally manouvers in the last minute_. Which gives a
different tone with opposite meaning.

Given the gloss 'similar' for "only", try "like": _The ship, like, maneouvers
in the last minute._ ... Not quite the same. in fact OE "aenlic" is
explainable as 'unlike', too. It has separate meanings. Nevertheless, Ger.
"gleich" comes full circle, as it means 'alike' or 'first of all, now, soon',
somewhat like 'just' (just the same, just do it), i.e. in "angleichen"
(adjust), or German "just in diesem Moment", though this is closer to "gerade"
(straight), "gerade in diesem Moment".

Je, jäh, jedoch Est ehst eh du dich versiehst Establish estimate esteem es aus
out Eureka eus eu- Finally at last at least mindest min- mint mind mon-ument

"genau" (exact[ly], cp. ') Now narrow. Nur na'ware ... na warte du nur. Na
warte. Warte nicht!

------
T3OU-736
The theme of "too many screens/high tech gizmos in favor of doinf things by
hand" seems reminiscent of other HN posts discussing the referred-to US Navy
accidents. Couldn't help but be reminded of the "Children of Magenta" YouTube
video mentioned in those threads on over-reliance on automation and technology
in the cockpit of aircraft during non-standard situations.

Thankfully no mortalities in this instance. Will the repevant learning occur?

------
sinuhe69
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 grown more strongly than ever before.
The most effective weapon for modern skirmishes seems to me simple but heavy
built ships designed for ramming :D

~~~
andyidsinga
Speaking about sailors and invincibility - there's a funny story that's
circulated around (false according to snopes [1]) about a particular US and
Canadian Navy interaction :) :)

Text snipped from snopes article:

Americans: “Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a
collision.”

Canadians: “Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid
a collision.”

Americans: “This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR
course.”

Canadians: “No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.”

Americans: “THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND
LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES’ ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE
DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU
CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT’S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER
MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.”

Canadians: “This is a lighthouse. Your call.”

[1] [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-obstinate-
lighthouse/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-obstinate-lighthouse/)

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah, I've heard variants of this story since I was a kid (usually with
different countries substituted for "Canadians" here). Funny, nonetheless.

~~~
donaltroddyn
It was an ad for compasses years ago:
[https://youtu.be/sYsdUgEgJrY](https://youtu.be/sYsdUgEgJrY)

------
nradov
Shipbuilders are designing shaftless propulsion systems for future warships
which would put electric motors and propellors in pods under the hull. That
would improve hull integrity and reduce the risk of flooding multiple
compartments.

~~~
jabl
Yes, so-called 'Azipod' propulsion systems are quite common on many kinds of
commercial vessels.

However, for warships capable of 30+ kn, I'd guess there are challenges not
faced by commercial Azipod usage.

~~~
rjsw
Engines in external pods won't be as quiet as internal ones, this matters if
one of the roles of a warship is to hunt submarines.

~~~
nradov
Engines will still be inside the hull. Only the motors will be in external
pods. So it shouldn't be any noisier.

------
yason
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 on the radar screen should ring some bells.

\- The tanker had their identification transponder on as expected: why did not
the military vessel get red lights flashing somewhere even if they chose to
not turn on theirs?

\- Don't ships have any means to communicate emergencies? If the tanker
couldn't contact the frigate by radio wouldn't the ship have deck lights or
search lights or something that they could starting flashing, as a last
resort, as soon as they observed that the frigate would in fact collide with
the tanker's course? Heck, couldn't they even shoot flares at the frigate if
that's really what it takes?

In the air, accidents usually happen these days because of several things go
wrong in sequence. Everything is basically covered for either in procedures or
by technology but given enough unlucky sequential failures in various systems
makes it possible for something fatal to happen, and sometimes it does.

In contrast, and based on a couple of articles, this sounds like a trivial
blunder.

Is there a more comprehensive failure analysis still being worked on, and to
be published later?

EDIT: The tanker apparently did manage to contact the fregate by radio. And
still they didn't "get it". I would like to see a more substantial breakdown
of the causes rather than mere incompetence. Norwegians have lived and
breathed the sea for ages, I generally do trust their ability to navigate a
ship.

~~~
mjlee
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.

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

~~~
mjlee
VHF is no replacement for Colregs -
[https://www.marinemec.com/news/view,opinion-avoid-using-
vhf-...](https://www.marinemec.com/news/view,opinion-avoid-using-vhf-and-
follow-colregs-to-prevent-accidents_51651.htm)

There have been multiple collisions attributed to two ships talking to each
other, not realising that the ship they were looking out the window was not
the ship they were talking to.

Additionally, the sirens are pretty loud and the Captain/Navigator's cabins
are normally in a position to hear them. Any CO who hears 5 short blasts in
the vicinity of their ship is going to sprint for the bridge.

In short, 5 short blasts is what IRPCS tells you to do - so you should do it.

------
sebcat
Pictures of the aftermath:
[https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5028-KNM-
He...](https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5028-KNM-Helge-
Ingstad/)

------
kwhitefoot
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.

~~~
cm2187
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.

~~~
tim333
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.

------
lcuff
Saying this has "far-reaching implications" sits with me as click bait.

~~~
aardvark291
This is a reference to the fact, stated in the article, that Australia,
Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands have ships of a similar design built by
the same shipbuilder, which may also suffer from design flaws that allowed
this one to sink so readily.

~~~
yread
And for many of the navies these ships are the biggest most expensive and
advanced vessels in the whole fleet. Imagine if the US Navy found out that
Nimitz-class has a strange tendency to sink inexplicably

~~~
kps
They don't sink, but unplanned time travel remains an issue.

------
unixhero
If you listen to the Audi recording , at least for me one thing seems clear.
The navy personnel onboard the ship are INCREDIBLY ARROGANT when receiving
warnings from the incoming bunker ship.

Plot twist. An American Navy person was also on the bridge when the incident
occured.

------
jhellan
You can find the preliminary investigation report here:
[https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25573&p...](https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25573&pid=SHT-
Report-Attachments.Native-InnerFile-File&attach=1) Interim safety
recommendations:
[https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25575&p...](https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968?iid=25575&pid=SHT-
Report-Attachments.Native-InnerFile-File&attach=1)

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

------
timonoko
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.

~~~
timonoko
They could use ID's of decommissioned ships. Or ID's of ships with only
seasonal use. The problem is that smugglers and spies soon learn those false
ID's if they are not changed frequently.

~~~
tom_mellior
Or they could just frickin' identify themselves, in peacetime, in their own
waters.

~~~
timonoko
No in Norway they cannot. The Coast Guard is after Russian Vodka Smugglers and
the Navy is watching for Russian Sneak Attack. It does not work if the enemy
knows where you are.

~~~
murderfs
It presumably doesn't work very well if you get run over by an oil tanker,
though...

------
MordodeMaru
Funny thing is that Spanish company Navantia was the first to be accused of
this (design errors, inexplicable sinking...) and in this article I still see
some indirect finger pointing and yet no proof of that. There is some weird
thing going on here.

~~~
close04
The initial info is that the ship _sank_ due to design flaws, like water
getting through watertight seals. The collision is in no way attributed to the
builder but to the ship's crew.

>> Norwegian authorities found that confusion on the Ingstad’s bridge was the
immediate cause of the collision, but that the ship sank because of
progressive flooding. After the collision, water quickly moved through several
watertight compartments, apparently via the ship’s propeller shafts, which
pass through the bulkheads between the compartments through theoretically
watertight openings (known as stuffing tubes or stuffing boxes) that should
prevent progressive flooding.

>> Based on crew interviews, authorities determined that the stuffing boxes
weren’t working properly, jeopardising the watertightness of the ship. The
investigation report warned that the faults that sunk the Ingstad could also
be in other Navantia ships, raising questions about a possible problem with
the design.

~~~
jabl
If the prop shaft or the hull is bent due to the collision, the stuffing boxes
would not seal?

Then again, with a glancing blow to the side of the ship, this should not
happen?

~~~
close04
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.

~~~
MordodeMaru
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?

~~~
close04
Maybe but we can't really tell from the article if that's the final report on
the investigation and if the builder agrees, hence the _might_ in "further
investigation _might_ be necessary". It just says:

> authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly

The why and the how could make the difference between bad design, bad
implementation, or bad luck.

~~~
MordodeMaru
That's actually my concern: while it is __impossible __to determine that from
the article, the burden is already in someone 's shoulders already.

~~~
close04
Keep in mind that news articles are not supposed to replace an investigation
report and are only to give more of an outline of the subject. It's just for
us laymen and puts very little burden on the involved parties. Certainly less
than the official investigation report.

------
goodcanadian
There are a lot of good comments on this story. What stood out to me in the
article, however, was that they thought the lights on the tanker were part of
the port. Sounds like a bit of a stupid mistake in the context of what other
commenters are saying, but fine, whatever, you thought they were lights of the
port. Why on Earth did you ram the port at 17 knots?

EDIT: Yes, I understand they didn't think it was moving, but it would have
been obviously close to their line of travel. A bit of caution would have been
appropriate.

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

~~~
Tor3
Yeah, apperently there were 7 people on the bridge.. way too many. Everything
becomes "somebody else knows what's going on".

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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.

------
prestonbriggs
I was pretty surprised at the 17 knots in a fjord.

~~~
flurdy
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 speak Norwegian, not English, at the time of crisis, and than then
same from the onshore vessel traffic service.

Also, you can travel along a huge chunk of the coast of Norway avoiding open
seas by being in "fjords", though mostly they are not real fjords just sounds
between islands etc.

~~~
dagw
_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.

~~~
Tor3
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?

~~~
dagw
_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.

~~~
Tor3
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.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I could be wrong, but 750m seems to me to be not very far when traveling 17
knots.

~~~
Tor3
That's true, however at the time of the collision the dangerous reefs were
about 90 degrees to their right. Compared to steering just a vee bit to
starboard to avoid the collision the 750m starts looking very wide indeed.

------
spanxx
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 there to help you but not to do your job.

~~~
varjag
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.

~~~
Tor3
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).

~~~
varjag
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.

~~~
Tor3
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.

------
anonu
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...

~~~
aaronmdjones
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.

------
jonsen
“...Cognition in the Wild, a detailed study of distributed cognitive processes
in a navy ship...”:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins)

------
sytelus
Is it really the case that all these bazillion dollar ships are made without
simple front radar that even Honda Civic comes equipped with? Also, no $500
nighvision for person on the watch?

------
Symmetry
It looks like a big contributing factor in the recent US destroyer collision
was lack of sleep on the part of the crew. Are Norwegian crews also
chronically sleep deprived?

------
walrus01
Considering the accuracy of the radar systems (and dozens of millions of
dollars spent on them) mounted on a modern frigate or destroyer, a warship
crew should REALLY NOT be reliant upon other vessels' AIS to avoid collisions.
Warships are maneuverable and fast. Physical failings of the ship aside, I
think there's something wrong with the complacency of the crew training.

------
csense
HN discussion of US Navy's collision issues:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077072](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077072)

Somehow between the invention of ships in 10,000 BC or whatever and the modern
day, we've lost the ability to keep them from running into each other.

------
pseudolus
Is the frigate a write-off or are there any plans to refloat and repair?

