US Navy destroyer collision

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

......

Alternatively Fedje, being a CONTROL centre, could have told Sola to take her way off till all three vessels to her starboard had passed her and then alter to starboard. I appears from the plot that Seigrunn, the last in line of the three, would have passed Sola in five or six minutes if Sola had taken her way off. IOW if Fedje had issued such an order when F313 was halfway from Björnen to Stureterminalen, there would, I think, have been no collision.

Anyway, that is all speculation, but I'll be reading the eventual report with great interest. This one strikes me as having been entirely avoidable and as having very few extenuating circumstances.

TP

Sola TS.... about 120,000 tonnes load displacement.... was doing 6 knots ... the traffic stream to her starboard was all doing about 10k....

There is not a lot you can do with the speed of 120,000 tonnes of stuff in a short period of time.... the pilot was already letting the outward traffic get clear before giving her a bit of stick and merging with the stream....

This .. posted above ... not only has the radar plot from ??? but also all the audio.... you just need to speak some norsk...

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/...source=vgfront

[psk125]

Alternatively Fedje, being a CONTROL centre, could have told Sola to take her way off till all three vessels to her starboard had passed her and then alter to starboard. I appears from the plot that Seigrunn, the last in line of the three, would have passed Sola in five or six minutes if Sola had taken her way off. IOW if Fedje had issued such an order when F313 was halfway from Björnen to Stureterminalen, there would, I think, have been no collision.

TP[/QUOTE]

Even if Fedje had told Sola to take way off when the destroyer was at the half-way point, they'd still have had no idea what the warship was going to do. Maybe the destroyer would have gotten itself t-boned by the slowed tanker. If F313 had just turned to starboard, they'd have been fine, with plenty of water between them and the shore and plenty of water under their bottom. Radar positionings make it look like they turned to port.

[Uricanejack]

VTS unlike ATC is not a vessel traffic control center. They typically do not direct or control vessel traffic.

Typical VTS Vessel Traffic Service typically receive and provide information only.

Having seen the video. Why did the VTS operator and the Tanker not know the name of the approaching naval vessel is a significant question.
When do vessels check in to VTS.
Was the Tanker required to make a pree departure call and a Departure call to VTS. Were those calls made.
When did the navy vessel enter the VTS system.
Was the navy vessel required to make a call to VTS. On entry into system. When passing check points. Are there any check points. Were those calls made.

What information Did VTS provide to the Tanker & the Navy vessel.
Did VTS pass on traffic update to vessels in the VTS system when an additional vessel entered the system by departing a berth or entering the area.

Is clearance to sail required was it given? Was the Tanker made aware at departure a naval vessel was inbound.

[Trond123]

All ships, both civilian and military longer than 24 meters, are required to check in with Fedje VTS at least 1 hour prior to entering VTS to obtain clearance, and again when entering VTS area. Reporting points are marked on the maps. Warship Helge Ingstad did check in about 1hour 20 minutes prior to the collision, according to Norwegian news media, and was complying with the rules.
There are no checkpoints within the VTS, except for the border between the VTS sectors, but everything related to this incident, happened well within one sector.

All vessels within VTS area is required to obtain clearance prior to leaving port, including the oil terminal Sola TS departed from.

It is not publicly known if Sola TS and Helge Ingstad were informed about each other, by VTS. VTS appeared surprised or confused when Sola TS 3 minutes prior to the collision, asked VTS if they knew which ship was coming on opposite heading.

I do a lot of boating in this area, and the bright flood light from the oil terminal can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish navigation lights and see the tankers when they are close to the terminal. Not sure if this can have been a factor in this incident. The tankers can appear as black holes surrounded by lots of light.

[psk125]

Originally Posted by Trond123

It is not publicly known if Sola TS and Helge Ingstad were informed about each other, by VTS. VTS appeared surprised or confused when Sola TS 3 minutes prior to the collision, asked VTS if they knew which ship was coming on opposite heading.

I do a lot of boating in this area, and the bright flood light from the oil terminal can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish navigation lights and see the tankers when they are close to the terminal. Not sure if this can have been a factor in this incident. The tankers can appear as black holes surrounded by lots of light.

Listening to the radio exchange makes it apparent that the tanker was advised by VTS that the Helge Ingstad was in the area - though that was not before the tanker got under way. VTS appearing "surprised or confused" may have been due to them not wanting to divulge too much information about a military vessel that was running without navigation lights and with AIS turned off. Perhaps it was on a secret military mission? We don't know.
The question came from the tanker because the oncoming vessel showing on their radar screen had no label because it's AIS had been turned off. Backlight glare preventing the tanker's running lights from being seen by the destroyer is totally moot. The tanker's AIS was definitely on, so the destroyer knew their name, size, heading, and speed, besides having the tanker's non-stealth radar return on their screens. The destroyer didn't need to see any navigation lights to know where the tanker was. They just weren't paying attention.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by psk125

The tanker's AIS was definitely on, so the destroyer knew their name, size, heading, and speed, besides having the tanker's non-stealth radar return on their screens. The destroyer didn't need to see any navigation lights to know where the tanker was. They just weren't paying attention.

Or they were determined not to take civilian instruction 'turn to starboard' so cut across the bow to port. They had manouverability and 3 times the speed so.......

[hpeer]

I just looked up the Norwegian Navy on Wikipedia. They note four frigates of this class but not the Ingstad skipping over that number.

They DO have a seperate page covering this collision.


Nansen
Frigate Branch Edit
NOTE: These ships are generally considered destroyers by their officers and other navies due to their size and role.[9]

Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate. Four vessels commissioned.
Fridtjof Nansen (F310) Launched June 3, 2004. Commissioned April 5, 2006.
Roald Amundsen (F311) Launched May 25, 2005. Commissioned May 21, 2007.
Otto Sverdrup (F312) Launched April 28, 2006. Commissioned April 30, 2008.
Thor Heyerdahl (F314) Launched February 11, 2009. Commissioned January 18, 2011.

[TrentePieds]

Thank you Trond, for your posts. It's wonderful to have a local man chime in :-)

What is in the article from VG (“Verdens Gang”?) you cited adds very much to my understanding of what happened, though I must say that it doesn't stop my shaking my head about what still looks to me to be a rather lackadaisical approach of both the watch on Ingstad and in the Fedje Vessel Traffic Service Centre.

Quoting Penguino: "...you just need to speak some norsk…"

As indeed I do, if you'll accept that Norsk is but a dialect of Danish. I am pleased that you do too ;-).

@ hpeer: Google “Nansen Class Frigatte” and you will find her included. In the strictest sense the KNM now has only four of the Nansen class frigates, since Ingstad must be considered a total loss. There is going to be a foofarah about her sinking completely while in the hands of the salvors, a foofarah as great as the one arising from the collision itself.

@ Dumnmad: As for “a secret mission”: Yes, possibly. After all, F313 was an ASW ship, and it IS possible that she was hunting Russian subs in Hjeltenfjord. But I doubt it. Far more likely that given that she was a NATO ship she was hunting AMERICAN subs. But even that I doubt. Way down where you are, you probably cannot know that in actuality she was returning to base after having participated in Trident Juncture 18, a NATO exercise hosted by Norway in recognition of the shift in European/American interests, and completed two days before the incident. Until the Norwegian Goverment puts its foot in its mouth and reveals something else, I'm prepared to accept that she was training bridge staff while on the way home – very green ones :-)!

Quoting PAK125: “If F313 had just turned to starboard, they'd have been fine, with plenty of water between them and the shore and plenty of water under their bottom. Radar positionings make it look like they turned to port.

Absolutely - a point I think I made earlier. Messing about with GoogleEarth you can easily determine as I did that the point of collision was about ¾NM off the rocks lying to starboard of F313. A timely alteration to starbord of a degree or two with a subsequent return to the course she was on before the alteration would have done the job. As you say, the water is deep. Someone, maybe Penguino, also linked to a shot of the relevant chart showing that there is also deep water right in on the eastern side of Hjeltenfjord.

I assume, tho I don't know, that F313 was based at Naval Base Haakonsvern some 30 NM south of the point of collision. No doubt F313 had in her nine year career passed by Stureterminalen often enuff that she knew how to deal with the terminal's bright lights.

So the way it looks to me is that there was dereliction of duty on the bridge of F313. I would have thot that in addition to a “normal” navigating bridge complement of OOW, helmsman and lookout there would, given that training was underway, be a dedicated Training Officer present to monitor the actual training, and Skipper would be there also, ready to take the con as his ship was taken through narrow waters with heavy traffic in the hands of trainees. There is, IMO, something rotten in Denmark here – or at least in Norway!

In regard to the freighters, I woulda thot that holding the eastern side of the channel would be the rule for northbound vessels and holding the eastern side for south-bound vessels. Trond123 can probably confirm that. So why did Fedje not ensure that that rule was observed? I woulda thot that vessels require clearance from Fedje to depart both Port of Bergen and Stureterminalen. Sola was 20 minutes, or so, out from the terminal when the collision occurred. Why did Fedje not hold her at the terminal until the three outbound vessels had passed by and Sola could fall safely in behind them? At 17 knots southbound F313 would have passed by the terminal in that same interval of time or very little more, and had that been the case, Sola would not have had to cross her track. I cannot believe that a half hour delay for safety's sake would have been of serious consequence to Sola's voyage plan. There are lots of questions for the enquiry to address here also.

TP

[Trond123]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

In regard to the freighters, I woulda thot that holding the eastern side of the channel would be the rule for northbound vessels and holding the eastern side for south-bound vessels.

The 3 freighters (and Sola TS) are following the common routing northbound. I have never heard VTS ordering ships to follow a specific course. Normally VTS only specifies the routing as names of the fjords. Never heard VTS ordering any delays for departures either, but it might happen.

In this map,
https://kart.gulesider.no/m/1ot5e
I have roughly marked the position of collission (point nr 1), and where Helge Ingstad ended up, (point nr 2). The oil terminal is the area marked as nr 3. Point nr 4 is the southern reporting point/ border of the VTS sector. Helge Ingstad entered VTS North of where my line ends. (Some NM north of the island Fedje, where VTS is located)

I have drawn a line, showing roughly the usual path of traffic in the Hjeltefjord. Zooming out on the map, shows that this line gives the ships about a straight line to follow through the fjord, without needing any turns. (Or without adding a little to the sailing distance).
Northbound traffic could easily have turned a little starboard a few NM south of the oil terminal, but is rarely done.

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

I woulda thot that vessels require clearance from Fedje to depart both Port of Bergen and Stureterminalen. Sola was 20 minutes, or so, out from the terminal when the collision occurred. Why did Fedje not hold her at the terminal until the three outbound vessels had passed by and Sola could fall safely in behind them?

Yes, clearance is required for all departures within VTS area. (Port of Bergen city, is outside VTS)

A delay appears as a logical solution, but is never done. One of the reasons might be that this is a heavy trafficated area, and it would sometimes cause huge delays if the tankers were required to wait for all traffic to clear the area.

The source of the map is the official Norwegian "Kartverket", so this map is accurate and can be used for navigation planning.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Trond123

All ships, both civilian and military longer than 24 meters, are required to check in with Fedje VTS at least 1 hour prior to entering VTS to obtain clearance, and again when entering VTS area. Reporting points are marked on the maps. Warship Helge Ingstad did check in about 1hour 20 minutes prior to the collision, according to Norwegian news media, and was complying with the rules.
There are no checkpoints within the VTS, except for the border between the VTS sectors, but everything related to this incident, happened well within one sector.

All vessels within VTS area is required to obtain clearance prior to leaving port, including the oil terminal Sola TS departed from.

It is not publicly known if Sola TS and Helge Ingstad were informed about each other, by VTS. VTS appeared surprised or confused when Sola TS 3 minutes prior to the collision, asked VTS if they knew which ship was coming on opposite heading.

I do a lot of boating in this area, and the bright flood light from the oil terminal can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish navigation lights and see the tankers when they are close to the terminal. Not sure if this can have been a factor in this incident. The tankers can appear as black holes surrounded by lots of light.

Thanks, confirms VTS practice is fairly typical. Good point about the possibility background lighting may have made the tanker difficult for the lookout to spot.
The Tanker would typically have a lot of deck lighting while line handeling turning the fwd deck lighting of shortly after departing seen from FWD accomdation lighting would be intentionally minimal.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Thank you Trond, for your posts. It's wonderful to have a local man chime in :-)

What is in the article from VG (“Verdens Gang”?) you cited adds very much to my understanding of what happened, though I must say that it doesn't stop my shaking my head about what still looks to me to be a rather lackadaisical approach of both the watch on Ingstad and in the Fedje Vessel Traffic Service Centre.

Quoting Penguino: "...you just need to speak some norsk…"

As indeed I do, if you'll accept that Norsk is but a dialect of Danish. I am pleased that you do too ;-).

@ hpeer: Google “Nansen Class Frigatte” and you will find her included. In the strictest sense the KNM now has only four of the Nansen class frigates, since Ingstad must be considered a total loss. There is going to be a foofarah about her sinking completely while in the hands of the salvors, a foofarah as great as the one arising from the collision itself.

@ Dumnmad: As for “a secret mission”: Yes, possibly. After all, F313 was an ASW ship, and it IS possible that she was hunting Russian subs in Hjeltenfjord. But I doubt it. Far more likely that given that she was a NATO ship she was hunting AMERICAN subs. But even that I doubt. Way down where you are, you probably cannot know that in actuality she was returning to base after having participated in Trident Juncture 18, a NATO exercise hosted by Norway in recognition of the shift in European/American interests, and completed two days before the incident. Until the Norwegian Goverment puts its foot in its mouth and reveals something else, I'm prepared to accept that she was training bridge staff while on the way home – very green ones :-)!

Quoting PAK125: “If F313 had just turned to starboard, they'd have been fine, with plenty of water between them and the shore and plenty of water under their bottom. Radar positionings make it look like they turned to port.

Absolutely - a point I think I made earlier. Messing about with GoogleEarth you can easily determine as I did that the point of collision was about ¾NM off the rocks lying to starboard of F313. A timely alteration to starbord of a degree or two with a subsequent return to the course she was on before the alteration would have done the job. As you say, the water is deep. Someone, maybe Penguino, also linked to a shot of the relevant chart showing that there is also deep water right in on the eastern side of Hjeltenfjord.

I assume, tho I don't know, that F313 was based at Naval Base Haakonsvern some 30 NM south of the point of collision. No doubt F313 had in her nine year career passed by Stureterminalen often enuff that she knew how to deal with the terminal's bright lights.

So the way it looks to me is that there was dereliction of duty on the bridge of F313. I would have thot that in addition to a “normal” navigating bridge complement of OOW, helmsman and lookout there would, given that training was underway, be a dedicated Training Officer present to monitor the actual training, and Skipper would be there also, ready to take the con as his ship was taken through narrow waters with heavy traffic in the hands of trainees. There is, IMO, something rotten in Denmark here – or at least in Norway!

In regard to the freighters, I woulda thot that holding the eastern side of the channel would be the rule for northbound vessels and holding the eastern side for south-bound vessels. Trond123 can probably confirm that. So why did Fedje not ensure that that rule was observed? I woulda thot that vessels require clearance from Fedje to depart both Port of Bergen and Stureterminalen. Sola was 20 minutes, or so, out from the terminal when the collision occurred. Why did Fedje not hold her at the terminal until the three outbound vessels had passed by and Sola could fall safely in behind them? At 17 knots southbound F313 would have passed by the terminal in that same interval of time or very little more, and had that been the case, Sola would not have had to cross her track. I cannot believe that a half hour delay for safety's sake would have been of serious consequence to Sola's voyage plan. There are lots of questions for the enquiry to address here also.

TP

VTS does not control or direct traffic.
It has been posted already there is no TSS.
Or defined routing even for Tankers. ( prediction for a good recommendation in a accident investigation)

It’s up to the Pilot and Tankers Master to determin the routing and passage plan. Most oil majors require a detailed passage plan. And a detailed Pilot Master Briefing. This particular plan might not have been particularly good. Without a TSS or required routing nobody else has any input.

In many ways fortunate it was a head on the Tanker was not damaged badly and no environmental impact from the tanker. If the Tanker had been hit midship it might be a different story. The Norwegian navy will recover much more quickly than the Norwegian fyord from an oil spill.

I suspect due to good luck rather than good planning.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by psk125

Listening to the radio exchange makes it apparent that the tanker was advised by VTS that the Helge Ingstad was in the area - though that was not before the tanker got under way. VTS appearing "surprised or confused" may have been due to them not wanting to divulge too much information about a military vessel that was running without navigation lights and with AIS turned off. Perhaps it was on a secret military mission? We don't know.
The question came from the tanker because the oncoming vessel showing on their radar screen had no label because it's AIS had been turned off. Backlight glare preventing the tanker's running lights from being seen by the destroyer is totally moot. The tanker's AIS was definitely on, so the destroyer knew their name, size, heading, and speed, besides having the tanker's non-stealth radar return on their screens. The destroyer didn't need to see any navigation lights to know where the tanker was. They just weren't paying attention.

Any OOW on a Tanker or Naval vessel reling on AIS for collision avoidance requires boot in the arse 6 lace holes deep.
Nothing replaces a good visual lookout. Not even RADAR.
Although at this point it’s not to clear what if anything they were reling on for collision avoidance.

The AIS being turned off on the Navy ship might be an item of note or a small contributing factor. In how this collision took place. It’s not the cause.

[hellosailor]

Let me add a curve ball:
The BBC and CNN have published articles saying that Russia was jamming the joint exercises in Norway.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/polit...ing/index.html

So add into the mix, this is only one of many incidents (the RIB that was and wasn't in Iranian waters, etc.) and players (similar accusations about North Korea) where a vessel relying on GPS navigation, may have either had no access to GPS (including the military signal) or may have been seeing a spoofed signal.

I suspect the Norwegian navy will be even more upset with this incident, than the USN has been with own our recent mishaps.

And if the real problem in fact has anything to do with military interference, that's about the last thing that anyone will put on the public record.

[davefromoregon]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Let me add a curve ball:

The BBC and CNN have published articles saying that Russia was jamming the joint exercises in Norway.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/polit...ing/index.html



So add into the mix, this is only one of many incidents (the RIB that was and wasn't in Iranian waters, etc.) and players (similar accusations about North Korea) where a vessel relying on GPS navigation, may have either had no access to GPS (including the military signal) or may have been seeing a spoofed signal.



I suspect the Norwegian navy will be even more upset with this incident, than the USN has been with own our recent mishaps.



And if the real problem in fact has anything to do with military interference, that's about the last thing that anyone will put on the public record.

This certainly adds a level of realism to the exercise. If things went to war, then it would be a certainty that this sort of jamming would be used by all sides.

[TrentePieds]

Russia Today (RT) has been busy mocking Norway an NATO. CNN is ever busy denigrating Russia. I'm sure that we can well afford to disregard both "news" organs.

To think that Russia would NOT employ whatever electronic means of warfare she has available to her would be naïve, and I don't think that naivety is a striking characteristic of the people who planned and controlled Trident Juncture 18. No doubt a significant component of the exercise was precisely that of attaining objectives while subjected to electronic warfare, the jamming of GPS and AIS being among the most obvious.

Going WAY out on a limb for a Sunday sailor, I'm fairly confident that relying on the primitive means of navigation I was taught in Danish waters so long ago that we were still using lodestones and cross-staffs, many of us on this forum could take an otherwise competently staffed vessel the size of F313 down that particular stretch of Hjeltenfjord, or for that matter right into Haakonsvern, in the given weather conditions, without bending any of the hardware. Or any egos. I cannot believe that persons qualified as Watch Keeping Officers, whether Navy or Merchant Marine, should NEED fancy electronic navigation gear for that. Therefore it is IMO totally irrelevant, as far as this collision goes, whether the Ruskis were playing silly-buggers with the signals.

As someone said "...six lace-holes deep" :-)

TP