Possibly related - from yesterday:
GPS spoofing contributing to collision??
Any comments/ideas here?? I can digest grounding but collision??
@Meme.Lord - any comments ?
GPS signals are very weak. Imagine trying to see a 100W light bulb from 22,000 miles away. If you can transmit on the right frequencies you can easily swamp the signals. Further, if you can transmit an appropriately modulated signal, you can transit false GPS signals that will deceive the receivers on your ships into reporting your calculated position incorrectly. The hardware to do this could be carried in a couple of suitcases and cost you in the thousands of dollars. This kind of attack is affordable by even hobbyists, so doing it at this scale would be easy enough for a nation state attacker or a well funded terrorist group.
1 Like
Pls explain how does it affect radars , automated radar ploting aids, colregs in good visibility and unrestricted waters. , good ,tested old fashion colision and close quarter avoidance techniques??
1 Like
Tanker Burning off Khor Fakkan Had Shadow Fleet Ties
24 Crewmembers Rescued After Tanker Collision in Gulf of Oman
" An early analysis by maritime expert Prof. Sal Mercogliano suggests that as the two vessels neared each other in a crossing situation, one of them made a late turn to starboard instead of maintaining course and speed. He noted that the tanker had been subject to conspicuous AIS spoofing earlier in its voyage. "
May be the mate realised he will not make it crossing the bow of the stand on vessel and he realised too late as this size tankers do not turn on a dime . May be both mates had a conversation what resulted in misunderstanding . Innuendos suggesting the collision was attributable to GPS/AIS spoofing is a bit far fetched. If both mates relied on AIS info only in assesing if collision risk exists then may be they should start selling melons instead of navigating supertankers.
1 Like
This is what happens when you’re not familiar with your ships advance and transfer, and maybe just don’t have what it takes to drive a ship.
2 Likes
From the quick look I took at the tracks I couldn’t tell if this started as an overtaking - then the ship being overtaken made a turn to port - looked like the frontline ship tried to get under their stern - didn’t make it. If it was always a crossing - that stand on ship making a port turn didn’t help anything.
1 Like
exactly. spot on.
Maybe saying that hard turn to port was a mechanical issue ??
There is “no indication” that satellite jamming played a part in a Frontline VLCC’s collision with a dark fleet tanker this week, according to chief executive Lars Barstad.
Frontline suspects that “a mechanical issue” with the other vessel is the likely cause of the collision with the 300,000-dwt Front Eagle (built 2020).
Might be something along that interface between the crew and the steering.
I’ve seen the ship make a hard turn when the steering is switched from hand to auto when the new course has not been entered properly.
Something like ordered heading or waypoint set incorrectly or similar.
1 Like
Continuing the discussion from Two Oil Tankers Collide and Catch Fire Near Strait of Hormuz:
A clear case of Rule 13, Overtaking, when a vessel is overtaking (Front Eagle) any other ship (Adalynn) first shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken, and Rule 8, Action to avoid collision shall be taken in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship, when is sufficient sea-room to avoid a close-quarters situation.
1 Like
rule 17 ???
1 Like
I am going to change my profile to “Maritime Expert Prof. Sal Mercogliano” per spowiednick on my YouTube channel.
I Have Made it Big!!! 
Also, there were rumors running around at the time that I posted this that the cause was an Iranian attack.
1 Like
Sir.
Your sarcazm is noted with thanks.
It was not my idea but honestly You deserve the title irrespective of some little, little, little… you know what.
My evidence it was not my idea is here:
Next time not to be embraced by your terms of endearment. I would use. Quote /unquote.
My support and vote for You Sir becoming Secretary GENERAL of IMO remains unchanged and is still valid.
I am sure You can move not only ships but mountains of bureaucracy as well, dumping them in the Mariana trench where they belong for the great benefit of Seafaring community.
2 Likes
I am not sure .A clear case in COLREG is a rarity which could only be celebrated.
Below clip from Dr.Sal’s video offers I think a better view of what transpired prior the collision.
Irrespective of what rule did apply in this particualr case Front Line was a give way vessel and should act accordingly.
Below clip explains other important aspects .
So far I see two emerging theories/speculations:
a) mechanical failure of the steeering gear/autopilot . Had it in the past on one vessel when the ship while on autopilot ( heading mode) veered suddenly to port or stb at full sea speed, what required fast and cool intervention of OOW /master especialy in heavy traffic ( approaching Gibraltar ) . In this case it would be a very unfortunate coincidence proving yet again continuous vigilance is a must.
b) Dr.Sal @Salvatore_Mercogliano version -GPS spoofing prior collision if the Front Line was on a track mode ( IF ) what can also be qualified as a very unfortunate coincidence as to timing.
I am a bit sceptical about Dr.Sal explanation concerning manual and/or autopilot ( heading mode) . If GPS spoofing is , what it is , then it will be registered while checking/observing on the ECDIS the position ( plot fm GPS receiver) . First the XTE would sound and alarm, which surely would be investigated by concious /vigilant OOW before taking any action resulting in starboard wheel application , what surely will involve looking out of the window.
In track mode it is to be expected,
that change of heading will be applied sort of automatically to maintain the set parameter. Surely this automation does not check the RADAR/ ARPA and does not make some eyeballing. Not yet.
So without a ton of other interesting details, which are not revealed we can only apply a ton of specylations and wishfull thinking.
Cheers.
Thank you sir, for your reply.
I have had, the same day of incident, the opportunity of review 24 hours track of both vessels, where an overtaking situation, with 3 times relation speed of “give way ship” (14 knots) to “stand on ship” (4 knots), was witnessed.
Of course, it’s always a matter of judicial expertise, and my condition remains within the nautical segment.
Best regards,
1 Like
Debating which rule applies is not going to be productive. Before a collision COLGEGS are useful for mariners to know what to expect which helps in making maneuvering decisions but not very useful after to determine the cause of an accident.
To make a decision the courts look at the relevant facts to determine the proportions of fault then apply COLREGS to justify their conclusion .
Interesting.
Reverting soon.
So your position Sir is : once an overtaking ship , always an overtaking ship.
Mentioned above item d) could support such wisdom , however my position ( nautical) is based on what is contained below:
Can hardly believe both vessels were in " overtaking " position in the sensu stricte meaning of the rules for 24 hrs in SIGHT OF EACH OTHER.
In conclusion Dear Sir we remain in a stalemate dillema while agreeing to DISAGREE 
What is great for the purpose of this discussion .
Even if my items a) or b) in the previous comment were true i would argue vehemently , some of the items from COLREGS could be applied .
That is why the Colregs were designed not only for the benefit of mariners but also to keep The Honorable Judges /Lords and their honorable brethren of elder sages from being unemployed.
