Tanker Sola and Norwegian navy frigate Helga Ingstad collide off Norway

Yes. We are in the era of video game navigators. Very few people under 50 years old know how, or have enough ambition, to navigate without a video game that does most of it automatically.

From man of steel on wooden deck to man of wood on steel deck, from navigator to electronic navigation equipment operator, from home flag to flag of convenience, from sextant to WAAS-DGPS, from passion to money making, from Italian to ketchup pasta, from glass ashtray to sardine can … :joy:

…back to topic !

I’d be surprised if this was a case of over-reliance on electronics. For one the preliminarily report listed confusion of lights as the primary error, that’s a visual error.

Secondly, my experience was some time ago but the conning officer spend close to 100% of his time looking forward and was conning the ship visually. That was the way the setup on the Fitzgerald was described as well.

I’d bet fatigue, training and experience are going to be listed as the primary factors.

Jesus, old people get boring quick.

1 Like

What about Sola TS trying to contact southbound KNM Helge Ingstad with Aldis lamp at 03:58.

You really had to be focus on the 4 inch square AIS display for not seeing that, no !

1 Like

5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Frigate Helga Ingstad Design - Damage Survivability

Well, if you can assume the watch didn’t see the tanker it’s not that much harder to assume they did not see the tanker + Aldis lamp.

As far as the AIS, if the watch was unaware that tanker was there there’d be no reason to look up the name.

In any case if OOD or JOOD was conning and wanted information they would have asked another member of the watch to provide it rather than leaving the conning position.

That was my experience at least when I went to sea in the military, very serious about watching forward at all time

Here’s what really happened :

349185c122a3a7d450c674a260a260c1

1 Like

ACX Crystal apparently tried to raise the FITZGERALD with a signal lamp. There might have been a half dozen people on board who would have had any chance of reading Morse Code, assuming they were looking for it in the first place. That would be my absolute last method of trying to communicate with a warship. Did the Sola sound the danger signal? I don’t remember hearing it in the VTS radar video overlay.

We can assume as much as we can possibly do, but not perceiving the powerful flash of an Aldis lamp at such a close range, during nighttime, in perfect visibility and straight in the direction of the incoming traffic, make me assume… that the techno-crew must have been utterly distracted ! Was AIS & ECDIS even existed in your time in the navy ? Nowadays, how can a master be assure that his subalterns are «very serious about watching forward at all time» knowing that while the cat’s away, the mice will play. Where there are men, there is manhood…

• 03:58 : Pilot called Fedje VTS and requesting information on southbound vessel. VTS had «no» information to give. Sola TS tries to contact southbound vessel with Aldis lamp. Pilot order a 10 degree starboard turn to 000°…

Nothing to do with Morse code, the light is just flashed to get attention. It’s used often to get the attention of fishing boats for example. Flashing, sweeping or like a flare up light, whatever works, no code.

1 Like

Rule 34 : Manoeuvring and Warning Signals

(d) When vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other and from any cause either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt «shall» immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle. Such signal «may» be supplemented by a light signal of at least five short and rapid flashes.

I agree, departing during daylight and daytime is safer. Vessel on short trips have problem with rest.

Because I think that its easier to ask Equinor than the Navy.

By logic, Occam’s razor, inexperience and lack of training is more than sufficient explanation.

Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor ) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

I don’t want to get into this type of discussion but I don’t think unsubstantiated insinuation of unprofessional conduct has a place in a serious discussion.

The most obvious cause is: lack of effective use of AIS.

Hubris, no AIS, high speed down a narrow fjord with traffic, at night, after exercises. Fatigue, inexperience, lack of training. Change of watch, unexpected, confusing situation.

That’s laying the groundwork for specific errors and lack of time, ability and skill to recover from those errors, common errors that we all make but normally catch before they lead to an incident.

When I studied marine accident investigations 40 years ago (at Rotterdam to become an average adjuster), I was told there was only one proximate cause of any incident. I investigated 100+ incidents at R’dam and it was always only one proximate cause. I never had any problems with that. If I were investigating this HI collision with Sola TS, I would conclude the that the proximate cause was a crew member on HI turning port in front of Sola TS.

Maybe the cause was a loose left-hand (anti-clockwise) thread metric wingnut!

3 Likes