US Navy destroyer collision

[El Pinguino]

Colour me a trifle slow... but what hat did this 'interaction' rabbit come out of?.... in an end on collision in what - in 'interaction' terms - was neither narrow nor shallow water? Which simply seems to involve nothing more than a fast moving darkened ship running into an immovable object....... at change of darkened ship's watch.....

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

From an un-verified Norwegian source..

'This happened in a VTS zone close to an oil terminal.
The frigate 17 knots, tanker 6 knots on close to head on course.
Starboard anchor on the tanker ripped open the hull outside the engine room on starboard side of the frigate.
Observers claim the frigate was dark.
The tanker saw the frigate 3 minutes before impact and the pilot tried to contact the oncoming vessel.
One minute before impact they had radio contact but the frigate could or would not change course...
Happened around the time watch crew on the bridge was changed on the frigate..'

VTS zone - Not in open waters and probably quite shallow.
Bow did not hit bow because it was "close to head on course"
Bow hit stern as they got sucked together.
Both crews aware of the other ship and the course they were on.
Clearly the tank crew was aware that such close passing was a collision course but the warship crew unaware that close passing could cause a collision.
Tanker cautious at 6knots, warship overconfident at 17 knots.

[JPA Cate]

I'd like to thank A64pilot for the videos to help me understand more, and my Jim for a different explanation. I hadn't realized that it was the velocity change of the water between the two ships that made it have less pressure than the water outboard of them that caused the "suction".

Thanks, guys.

[El Pinguino]

Fjord where collision occured about 3 miles wide and between 100 and 300 metres deep...

Photos of navy ship https://gcaptain.com/sinking-norwegi...ker-collision/ show damage well above the water line just aft of midships at the frd end of her hanger caused by the flare of the tanker's starboard bow and/or her starboard anchor. Her bulb would have caused the damage below the waterline in the same area that led to the navy ship taking water in her engine room.

Still wondering which hat the interaction rabbit was found in...

[El Pinguino]

Meanwhile.... the audio...
http://norwaytoday.info/news/knm-hel...by-the-tanker/

'The sound log shows that contact was made between the ships one minute before impact.

Without being sure if it is the Frigate or not, «Sola TS» queries whether it is «Helge Ingstad» that is heading towards them indeed. The warship acknowledges this about five seconds later.

In the time that follows, the tanker repeatedly implores the Frigate to alter its course towards starboard.

The answer from the Frigate is according to the audio log: «Then we get to close the breakers.»

«Turn starboard if it’s you that is approaching. You have …», «Sola TS», among other things, replies.


Later, the tanker issues the following message: « Helge Ingstad! Turn!», before they three seconds laters laconically state: «We’re colliding, then.»

[Lake-Effect]

Hmmm. Well, there are a few shipyards that could always use the extra work.

[TrentePieds]

The Norwegian press states clearly that Ingstad was conducting "navigational training". I take that to mean that she was training the people on the bridge, including the officer who had the con. The Norwegian press hints that OOW was inexperienced, yet training others.

It was dark in the Hjeltefjord at 0403, and I'm sure all the conning officers on each ship could see were the Nav lights of the other ship. The Norwegian press reports make it clear that Sola specifically asked Ingstad if she was "coming at" Sola, i.e. there was uncertainty on Sola's bridge about Ingstad's precise relative position.

Sola , in constant radio communication with Ingstad, repeatedly requested Ingstad to turn to starboard, to which Ingstad answered, in the first instance, "We have everything under control". Sola again requested Ingstad to turn, to which Ingstad replied that that would bring her "too close to the rocks", and held her course. Sola said "Turn! Else we'll collide!" Three seconds later alarms went off on Ingstad. They were heard by Sola as Ingstad said "We are trying to gain control!"

Hjeltefjorden is narrow for most of its length, although at the place where the collision occurred, its about 2NM wide. Nearby Bergen is a major port and has Traffic Control facilities.

So it appears that there is plenty of blame to go around. Inevitably comparisons with USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain will be made. I do think that there are similarities between the confusion/incompetence/cockiness/sense of entitlement on the bridge of the Ingstad with that on the bridge of Fitzgerald.

I think it's ironic that the news organ reporting much of this is called "aldrimer" which may be translated as "never again". The web site is essentially an "anti-war" site professing to hold the Norwegian military's feet to the fire.

TrentePieds

[JPA Cate]

The web site is essentially an "anti-war" site professing to hold the Norwegian military's feet to the fire.

Do therefore suspect that their reporting of this instance is biased? Or, just that they reported it at all, because it's what they want to do?

Ann

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Do therefore suspect that their reporting of this instance is biased? Or, just that they reported it at all, because it's what they want to do?

Ann

That report ties in with the report I posted from 'Norway Today' which I do not think has any reason for bias....

It would appear that the tanker did not know who they were dealing with until a few minutes one minute before the collision.....

[hellosailor]

I am often reminded of "The Caine Mutiny" and the target that was towed.
Sometimes, someone is just following orders to follow orders, and someone else should be kept away from the strawberry ice cream.

Well, perhaps lingonberry or cloudberry in Norway?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

..... Inevitably comparisons with USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain will be made. I do think that there are similarities between the confusion/incompetence/cockiness/sense of entitlement on the bridge of the Ingstad with that on the bridge of Fitzgerald.

TrentePieds

Two big differences I see in this incident was
1. The Norwegian warship at least finally participated in Bridge to Bridge com's but the OOW did not have the situational awareness of whether he was sailing into a box while doing 17 knots. The tanker kept teling him to take proper evasive passing measures.

2 Unlike the US military, who purposely fed disinformation and inhibited any independent civilian investigation, the Norwegian Government is at least trying to be transparent.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Sola , in constant radio communication with Ingstad, repeatedly requested Ingstad to turn to starboard, to which Ingstad answered, in the first instance, "We have everything under control". Sola again requested Ingstad to turn, to which Ingstad replied that that would bring her "too close to the rocks", and held her course. Sola said "Turn! Else we'll collide!" Three seconds later alarms went off on Ingstad. They were heard by Sola as Ingstad said "We are trying to gain control!"
TrentePieds

One minute everything is under control, next they're are trying to gain control.

Thats what close passing does - you lose control of steerage.

[TrentePieds]

@Ann:

No, I had no feeling when I read the report in AldriMer (in Norwegian) that there was an element of Schadenfreude, but rather that there was a sort of head-shaking disappointment that the RNN had failed so dismally in the very fundamental task of avoiding collisions, particularly, as pointed out by El Pinguino, in waters as benign as the Hjeltenfjord.

But now that I've found the site, I think I'll 'ave a good old butcher's 'ook and suss out what drives it :-)!

The tanker pier, where Sola had taken on cargo, is on the western side of the fjord. She was outbound, which presumably means that once clear of the terminal, she would hold the eastern side of the channel while Ingstad (NATO F313), being inbound for Bergen, would hold the western side.

It was suggested that Ingstad was running dark in every respect, including AIS. A VesselTracker plot of Sola's course shows that she, and her escort tugs, were slightly west of mid-channel. There is no track on the plot for F313 until, suddenly, her ID pops up right on Sola's track. This would seem to confirm that she was, indeed, running without active AIS. No doubt the impact caused loud exclamations of "Oh, POOP!" in Norwegian, and the turning on of the AIS. Solas then appears to be taking off her way while turning to starboard and lying to, presumably to await developments.

At the point of the collision, there appears to have been something like 3/4 NM of clear water twixt F313 and the western shore to her starboard, and the water is, as El Penguino sez, deep close in. IOW Ingstad COULD have altered to starboard quite safely. One must assume, therefore, since she thought she was close to the rocks, that her position on her own pilot's plot was wrong. Was she practicing dead reckoning smack in a TSS?

El Penguino also points out that the time was 0400, i.e. just the time when the middle watch is standing down and the morning watch is taking over. but surely that is neither an excuse nor a mitigating circumstance. The middle watch should have finished briefing the morning watch by 0400. The actual collision occurred at 0403 by which time a fully briefed morning watch should have had the bridge. But it was a training cruise, so perhaps training in handing over a watch was on the agenda that morning. More likely, the pilot of the morning watch trusted the (wrongly made) plot made by the pilot of the middle watch.

I don't, myself, see that there can be any benefit that can't be had otherwise in practicing running dark in the approaches to a major port. Surely, given the nature of Norwegian fjords, if running dark is an essential object of a night's training, it would make more sense for two ships of the RNN to go off into an unfrequented fjord, of which there are many, and, there, play out of the traffic.

Easy enuff to speculate, of course. Let's hope the truth comes out in the enquiry for the benefit of us all.

TrentePieds

[TrentePieds]

@Pelagic:

Yes, I think you are right, but you'll understand that as a New Canadian, and an FDP (Former Danish Person) I need to step gingerly here.

I think that that is particularly so given what has been said about NATO in recent days by non-Scowegians ;-0)!

TP

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

One minute everything is under control, next they're are trying to gain control.

Thats what close passing does - you lose control of steerage.

Easy there ... you will damage your head.

Running under the bow of another ship in such a manner that half your ship is on her port bow, the other half is on her starboard bow, while the middle bit of your ship has been hit by the pointy end of the other ship does not count as 'close passing'....

Quit while you are in front... or show us the hat you are getting the rabbits out of.....