Helge Ingstad - Salvage Operation

If one wishes to speculate, these RCN folks had slightly better input than some right-wing misogynist nutjob:

https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,129352.100.html?msg1564097

2 Likes

Only thing wrong with that is that HI was not on her way back to home base, but heading to Scotland for more exercises as part of NATO’s Atlantic Standing Fleet.
They just chose to take the inshore route as a Navigation training exercise, while the rest of the fleet took the direct open water route.

Interesting theory although I am not sure that this was the cause of the accident and that this could have led to the apparent situational unawareness, probably because they ignored the available radar information.

I cannot speak for the Navy where they call this the Homeward Bound Syndrome. I can however speak for the merchant navy I sailed in and the fact that there was something similar which we called Channel Fever. Nearing the British Channel with Rotterdam waiting at the end some of us got very nervous, restless and were unable to sleep properly. It was a kind of euphoric feeling that took hold knowing that at the end of a long voyage one would meet again with family, wife, fiancée, children and friends.

For bridge officers the disrupted sleep was an unwanted and potentially dangerous situation. I didn’t suffer from this phenomenon maybe because I was not married. Because of the marital status it also had a less prosaic “Fever” name which I will refrain from mentioning here…

In the offshore drilling industry it is well known, but maybe not scientifically proven, that the last week before crew change is most accident prone.

An overworked crew will relax in any portion of the voyage they can, not just going home. I made a couple posts about this phenomena on the smaller scale of the bridge watch.

Karl Weick - An Analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster

On ship with changes from high-tempo to lower tempo operations it’s something that can be observed and that a capt should be aware of.

Mariners that have called to Honolulu recall that at the entrance to the port there is a sea buoy and then three sets of buoys (IIRC). Once the ship gets through the buoys it is inside the breakwater. Next there is a short straight section and then a 90 degree turn.

The connection between the Weick article and Honolulu Port entrance is that a pilot there explained there was possibility of starting the 90 degree turn late. The reason was because after the difficulty of getting through the buoys (sometimes strong set to the west with wind and current) the pilot and the bridge crew would stop concentrating on the task because little attention was required on the straight section.

The error of the late turn would come because crews would slip into an almost daydream state.

Weick mentions the same phenomena with the KLM crew as they had to turn the 747 around on the narrow runway.

I was reminded of this article when I was reading about the Fitzgerald, the crew had also just completed some difficult tasks (exercises and then heavy traffic) and might have had a brief respite.

I always admire the seamen bringing my ship up the Channel to Rotterdam in the middle of the night for loading at 06.00 am. How they found the pilot, etc, in that mess still makes me admire them.

Picking up a pilot was considered by some captains as a kind of daring art. Already at some distance we tried to locate on the radar a smallish relatively fast moving target which usually was the pilot boat and kept moving slowly in that direction. We tried to avoid anchoring as much as possible as then you had to sit and wait for the pilot to board and that could take some time. Closer, by daylight, the pilot boat was flying a blue flag with white letter P. By night they carried a white light over red. With large vessels these days the pilot boards by helicopter which is simpler.

Full timelapse of the raising: https://youtu.be/Y_36HTsTHEM

1 Like

Any Navy guys here? Are these frigates equipped with flank mounted (passive) sonar arrays? (see red oval).
Whatever was there was ripped of the side, opening up the hull.
The bulbous bow of Sola TS left red paint marks on HI’s hull.
ingstad_hakonsvern_17%20a

Removal of sensitive equipment, methinks then scrapped…

What appears to be a stabilising fin has obviously been totally distorted.Whether from contact with the bulbous bow, or just the side of TS Sola as the HI was sliding along the side is not clear.

Not sure if any side mounted sonar was installed, but here is details of all weapon systems and equipment on the Nansen class:


Posted earlier in another thread.

2 Likes

Let’s not forget that after the accident HI was being pushed against rocks by tugs. This probably didn’t help the hull either.

1 Like

So the HI had plenty equipment to spot other ships, e.g. a Kongsberg MSI 2005F ASW combat system, a Spy-1F multifunction phased array radar, an RSR 210N multipurpose 2D radar system, a Vigy Observer, an MK 81 AN/SPG-62 illumination radar, an ES-3701 Tactical Radar ESM and Surveillance System all supported by an integrated communications control system. In spite of it all, the HI crew didn’t notice an Aframax tanker straight ahead, turned port so the starboard side was ripped open, etc. I would have turned starboard to start with.

You forgot another system to spot ships consisting of a thin sheet of a glass pane which is transparent and lets operator look outside the closed compartment without being exposed to elements. Was crew trained in using this technology?

1 Like

When I was in the navy 1965/70 the war ship nav.bridge was open to the elements keeping the people there awake. Only the ice breakers had enclosed nav.bridges. Luckily I never served on any such monsters.

1 Like

Helge Ingstad is afloat again:


But not for long. She is going into a drydock shot into the rocks at Haakonsvern Naval Base.

1 Like

Hm, the wreck will be towed to dry dock??? It cannot move anywhere under own power. In dry dock what will happen apart from patching up the hole in the hull??? Are they going to modify the bridge to be open … to keep the crew awake? IMHO better is to scrap it.
Luckily I understand Norwegian (and the link) so I know that Norwegian police now considers taking action against three crew on the HI bridge. The police thinks the HI crew couldn’t distinguish between a tanker and shore.
Maybe they were all drunk?

I wonder whether it is normal practice in marine accidents, such as this one, to do a breath alcohol test? It would be the logic thing to do, certainly in cases were the risk of damage, both to material and personal lives, is so big. This should be done of course immediately after the accident. In traffic accidents this is standard procedure nowadays. If the result of the breath test is doubtful a blood test at the police station is then done. I really hope that they did these tests because if not it would reflect badly, amateurish, on the investigation.

1 Like

More like you are.

BTW; NOT 3 people on the HI, but the OOW on HI, the pilot on Sola TS and the duty officer at Fedje VTS. And they are not being charged, but being suspended during investigation. (Maybe you don’t understand Norwegian good enough to read an article, just the headlines?)