Frigate "Helge Ingstad" sinks

[Oldman1]

7 Sailor were injured, it was due to the quick thinking of the Captain, he (or she, this I don't know) deliberately ran the ship aground to stabilise the ship and facilitate an effective rescue. However, what the captain did eventually doom the ship, as she is taken water and listing heavily when she was aground.

The ship sank and classified as a Hull Lost, source said it is still salvageable tho, but even if it does, the repair fee are not going to be cheap.



List price for the ship is 510 millions USD, total project cost is 21 billions kr (About 2.5 billions USD)

The ship is build by Spanish Navantia, based on the Alvaro de Bazan class Frigate design, it is an AGEIS frigate, armed with AN/SPY-1D radar, and with a 8 cell quad pack RIM-162 missile, the radar and missile package was state of the art.

Looks more like its better to get a new ship than salvage it. Can't see all of the damage.

 

[jhungary]

Looks more like its better to get a new ship than salvage it. Can't see all of the damage.

Well, If I remember correctly, the repair cost is not as great as the salvage cost, I mean if you are intended to salvage it, you need to lift the whole ship up upright, which it will cost quite a lot of money just to put the ship back up, then the next bit is equipment cost, depending on how watertight those compartment was and how much water damage to the equipment, it could have been less than you buy brand new if the equipment were not damaged, but we don't know what happened to the interior so it is just everybody guess.

It could be like you said, it's more expensive to fix it then buy a new one, or it could be the other way around.

 

[LKJ86]

 

[Hack-Hook]

Well, according to International Maritime Law, a collision at sea usually would put both side at fault, because it stated that if one party failed or cannot response to the call, the other party are then responsible for avoiding the incident.

Well, should let the investigation run its course, then we probably will know something, otherwise its too soon to put blame on any one side on this.

and that maritime law says if you see the other ship can't do anything to avoid collision it's your responsibility to do so and a sane mind says a 250 meter long tanker in a harbor have very limited options to avoid ramming other ships in front of it but a modern frigate options are numerous .

 

[jhungary]

and that maritime law says if you see the other ship can't do anything to avoid collision it's your responsibility to do so and a sane mind says a 250 meter long tanker in a harbor have very limited options to avoid ramming other ships in front of it but a modern frigate options are numerous .

Actually, it does not matter what kind of ship you have, the law stays the same, you are equally culpable regardless of whether you are a 250 meters long tanker, a 300 meter long Aircraft Carrier or a 500 foot frigate. Because the law said if you are a bigger and more sluggish ship, you are require to clear a larger "Comfort Zone", it's the same as highway code really, if a car hitting a semi, logics would prevail that a semi cannot mauver as good as a car, however, as Highway code define, if you are driving a semi, you are to watch out for a braking zone larger than a car, because you know its takes you longer to stop, so in law, it does not matter who have more "Option" if 2 ship collided on each other, both ship are culpable

As I say, I wasn't there, you weren't there, it's best to let the investigation run its course, no point putting out guess and estimation when we are not involved.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Actually, it does not matter what kind of ship you have, the law stays the same, you are equally culpable regardless of whether you are a 250 meters long tanker, a 300 meter long Aircraft Carrier or a 500 foot frigate. Because the law said if you are a bigger and more sluggish ship, you are require to clear a larger "Comfort Zone", it's the same as highway code really, if a car hitting a semi, logics would prevail that a semi cannot mauver as good as a car, however, as Highway code define, if you are driving a semi, you are to watch out for a braking zone larger than a car, because you know its takes you longer to stop, so in law, it does not matter who have more "Option" if 2 ship collided on each other, both ship are culpable

As I say, I wasn't there, you weren't there, it's best to let the investigation run its course, no point putting out guess and estimation when we are not involved.

actually the law care a little about what type of ship you're on but first look at where accident happened

and Sola TS path

and here what law say

Narrow channels

• A vessel proceeding along a narrow channel must keep to starboard.
• Small vessels or sailing vessels must not impede (larger) vessels which can navigate only within a narrow channel.
• Ships must not cross a channel if to do so would impede another vessel which can navigate only within that channel.

18. Responsibilities between vessels
Except in narrow channels, traffic separation schemes, and when overtaking (i.e., rules 9, 10, and 13)

• A power-driven vessel must give way to:
  • a vessel not under command;
  • a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre (this may include vessels towing one another);[20]
  • a vessel engaged in fishing;
  • a sailing vessel.
• A sailing vessel must give way to:
  • a vessel not under command;
  • a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
  • a vessel engaged in fishing.
• A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:
  • a vessel not under command;
  • a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre.
• Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre shall, if possible, not impede the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
• A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition.[11][page needed]

and here a 250m tanker have limited maneuverability .

also the frigate was warned several time by official on the ground and personnel of the tanker and their response was they have anything under control.

 

[jhungary]

actually the law care a little about what type of ship you're on but first look at where accident happened

and Sola TS path

and here what law say



and here a 250m tanker have limited maneuverability .

also the frigate was warned several time by official on the ground and personnel of the tanker and their response was they have anything under control.

So, do you know any navigational restriction on the frigate as well? Bear in mind both ship were IN THE SAME vicinity when they collided with each other.

Warning does not mean anything as well, as per maritime law, warning is NOT a precaution undertaken by a party, I can warn you to get away, and if I did not do anything or everything you can do, you still on the hook for the responsibility. Because in this case, the law dictate if you warn the other either by horn or radio communication, IT WOULD BE YOUR TURN to avoid the collision. fact that if warning were made prior to the collision by the cargo ship and they did not stop or alter course, that actually suggest culpability on behalf of the Cargo Ship, as per International Maritime Law

Again, as I said many time, we DON'T KNOW the detail on both ship as we weren't there, why jump the gun and try to define which side is at fault? There are many thousand thing we don't know, do you know if the pilot house of both ship are properly staffed? Or have both ship had enough watch? I mean, there are a lot of reason we don't know, it's better let the investigation run its course.

 

[Hack-Hook]

So, do you know any navigational restriction on the frigate as well? Bear in mind both ship were IN THE SAME vicinity when they collided with each other.

Warning does not mean anything as well, as per maritime law, warning is NOT a precaution undertaken by a party, I can warn you to get away, and if I did not do anything or everything you can do, you still on the hook for the responsibility. Because in this case, the law dictate if you warn the other either by horn or radio communication, IT WOULD BE YOUR TURN to avoid the collision. fact that if warning were made prior to the collision by the cargo ship and they did not stop or alter course, that actually suggest culpability on behalf of the Cargo Ship, as per International Maritime Law

Again, as I said many time, we DON'T KNOW the detail on both ship as we weren't there, why jump the gun and try to define which side is at fault? There are many thousand thing we don't know, do you know if the pilot house of both ship are properly staffed? Or have both ship had enough watch? I mean, there are a lot of reason we don't know, it's better let the investigation run its course.

come on the warning was made by the Fedje VTS center who were presiding over the navigation inside Hjeltefjorden Fjord and according to the law any ship longer than 80 feet if wants to navigate in that fjord must be in contact with them from 1 hour before entering Fjord
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/wrecked-norwegian-frigate-was-warned-prior-to-collision

and again the tanker was full of oil so they simply could not made maneuver in the fjord

and here you can see the Radar that show the movement of the two ships before accident and it seems the frigate actually increased its speed so it can be in front of the tanker.
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks...-sola-ts?utm_content=row-1&utm_source=vgfront

 

[jhungary]

come on the warning was made by the Fedje VTS center who were presiding over the navigation inside Hjeltefjorden Fjord and according to the law any ship longer than 80 feet if wants to navigate in that fjord must be in contact with them from 1 hour before entering Fjord
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/wrecked-norwegian-frigate-was-warned-prior-to-collision

and again the tanker was full of oil so they simply could not made maneuver in the fjord

and here you can see the Radar that show the movement of the two ships before accident and it seems the frigate actually increased its speed so it can be in front of the tanker.
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks...-sola-ts?utm_content=row-1&utm_source=vgfront

Again, I am going to say this.

We don't know the circumstance on the collision, and yes, even if an oil tanker is laden with oil, they can still be able to avoid a collision. The only thing you need to do is to stop the ship in the ford, you don't need to "manoeuvre".

Also, you do not know what happened to the "Warning" to the frigate, maybe the Frigate had changed course heeded to the warning? you don't know, maybe the frigate did not know it was them they were hailing? you don't know about that either. Maybe nobody is staffing the radio room? Or Civilian Band was not monitored? Or even maybe the control room is hailing the wrong ship? You don't know about all that...

How about the reaction of the tanker? Did you know if the tanker know the collision is imminent? Did you know if the Pilot House is staffed? Did you know if the Tanker were actually correcting their course?

As a Police Investigator with 4 years investigation/intelligence experience. You don't know mean you don't know, you cannot assume you know the answer because if you do that, you based every of the subsequent argument on an assumption. Which will bring you further away from the truth.

What we do know at this point is that the Frigate is travelling southbound and the tanker is travelling north bound, and the frigate is hit from the Starboard Aft side. Which mean either the frigate or both ship have manoeuvre out of their original course (otherwise it would have been a head on collision) now, we don't know whether both follow the rule and turn port, or one turn port and one go straight up (If this is this instant, then the Frigate had move and the tanker didn't) that is the only information we know for sure at the moment.

So, with so many factor unaccounted for, again, how can you laid blame on either or both side? I know for sure as a fact, as an investigator myself, I would not have enough information to make even an educated guess, let alone assign blame on this point, unless you know something that I don't, I don't think you can do that either, and it best to let the investigation run its course.

In an collision course, ships are to adjust their course to port (left) to avoid collision, and if both ship were turn to port, then both ship will NOT collide.

From this radar plot, if this is indeed the actual radar return, we can clearly see Helge Ingstad had indeed turn to port to avoid the Sola TS, but Sola TS did not change course nor stop, which accounted for the Starboard aft collision toward Helge Ingstad.

So if in this case, the Cargoship is then violating the International Maritime Law, because it dictated that both ship were to turn to port if both ship is on a head on collision course.

But again, I am not sure if this is the actual radar plot or have anything changes in between, even so, I still cannot say which side is at fault.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The only thing you need to do is to stop the ship in the ford, you don't need to "manoeuvre".

do you knew how long it take to stop a fully loaded oil Tanker ?
and here the frigate have turned of its locator so the tanker was aware of them only after seeing the visually (the frigate was a low RCS one so it was not shown on the Tanker navigation Radar) while by the pictures I posted you could see that the tankers locator were active and the frigate was aware of it way before through it or its Radars

Also, you do not know what happened to the "Warning" to the frigate, maybe the Frigate had changed course, you don't know, maybe the frigate did not know it was them they were hailing, you don't know about that either. Maybe nobody is staffing the radio room? Or Civilian Band was not monitored?

go and read what passed there , if they didn't knew their own ship name as they were hailed by the name , then they must have been too high on something

How about the reaction of the tanker? Did you know if the tanker know the collision is imminent? Did you know if the Pilot House is staffed? Did you know if the Tanker were actually correcting their course?

both ship were staffed as they were talking with each other and by the chance the tanker was leaving the port and well you usually leave ports while every one is at their station , but a tanker either is empty or it is fully loaded have very limited maneuvering capabilities

What we do know at this point is that the Frigate is travelling southbound and the tanker is travelling north bound, and the frigate is hit from the Starboard Aft side. Which mean either the frigate or both ship have manoeuvre out of their original course (otherwise it would have been a head on collision) now, we don't know whether both follow the rule and turn port, or one turn port and one go straight up (If this is this instant, then the Frigate had move and the tanker didn't) that is the only information we know for sure at the moment.

the frigate was warned to go to starboard if it has turned port then it means it acted against what official at the shore who were residing over traffic in fjord told it.
by the way in case of head on collision

Head-on situations
When two power-driven vessels are meeting head-on both must alter course to starboard so that they pass on the port side of the other. "Head-on" means seeing the other vessel ahead or nearly ahead so that by night her masthead lights are actually or nearly lined up and/or seeing both her sidelights, or by day seeing a similar aspect of her.[11][page needed] "If you see three lights ahead, starboard wheel and show your red."

according to your photo the frigate turned to port while the tanker turned starboard

So, with so many factor unaccounted for, again, how can you laid blame on either or both side? I know for sure as a fact, as an investigator myself, I would not have enough information to make even an educated guess, let alone assign blame on this point, unless you know something that I don't, I don't think you can do, and it best to let the investigation run its course

a single fact is clear the frigate could have turned in the length of the ship while the tanker for turning needed a circle with the radius of several kilometer. and just that fact and the fact that sensor on the frigate could detect the sip as soon as it left the port (probably even inside it) but the tanker navigational radar could not detect the low RCS frigate and they become aware of it only visually so it imply who didn't did what was necessary to avoid accident

a frigate can turn like this

Or look at 7:20

or look at it and see how long it take a navy ship to go to reverse Full crash back at less than 20 second and stop in 12 second

 

[jhungary]

do you knew how long it take to stop a fully loaded oil Tanker ?
and here the frigate have turned of its locator so the tanker was aware of them only after seeing the visually (the frigate was a low RCS one so it was not shown on the Tanker navigation Radar) while by the pictures I posted you could see that the tankers locator were active and the frigate was aware of it way before through it or its Radars

go and read what passed there , if they didn't knew their own ship name as they were hailed by the name , then they must have been too high on something


both ship were staffed as they were talking with each other and by the chance the tanker was leaving the port and well you usually leave ports while every one is at their station , but a tanker either is empty or it is fully loaded have very limited maneuvering capabilities


the frigate was warned to go to starboard if it has turned port then it means it acted against what official at the shore who were residing over traffic in fjord told it.


a single fact is clear the frigate could have turned in the length of the ship while the tanker for turning needed a circle with the radius of several kilometer. and just that fact and the fact that sensor on the frigate could detect the sip as soon as it left the port (probably even inside it) but the tanker navigational radar could not detect the low RCS frigate and they become aware of it only visually so it imply who didn't did what was necessary to avoid accident

a frigate can turn like this

Or look at 7:20

or look at it and see how long it take a navy ship to go to reverse Full crash back at less than 20 second and stop in 12 second

1.) Just because the Navy ship can turn like a snake, that DOES NOT MEAN, BY LAW, THE CARGOSHIP DOES NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING.

2.) I Do know how long it takes to have a fully loaded cargoship to come to a full stop from 14 knots, it's 11 minutes. How do I know? My Cousin and My Father was in the Navy and Coastguard.

3.) Frigate turn to PORT (Which is the right thing to do by the way) instead of Starboard like the Controller asked does not excused the fact the Cargo ship did not make any adjustment.

4.) If both ship were talking to each other and MOST IMPORTANTLY UNDERSTAND they are at a collision course, then the radar plot suggest the Cargo ship did NOTHING, which is violating International Maritime Law. Also, its ridiculous to claim The frigate have low RCS, because the Station were in communication to the frigate 1 hour before the collision, and the station would also contact with the cargo ship to clear off traffic, and both ship was in constant communication with each other, then it will not be like you said "The cargoship only aware of the Frigate when they see her"

As I said, both you and I don't know exactly what happened, but you are surely biased for the fact that "Frigate can turn and burn and Cargoship cannot, so it must be the Frigate fault" Well, I am of no interest to further this debate with you, and I hope you enjoy being a armchair Columbo, but please, do not engage in any investigative work.

I will not further reply to your post.

 

[Hack-Hook]

In an collision course, ships are to adjust their course to port (left) to avoid collision, and if both ship were turn to port, then both ship will NOT collide.

in head on situation they must turn to starboard and even if they must have turned port it's irrelevant , the law say in narrow channel the bigger ship that needs deeper water for passage get the deeper water.

Just because the Navy ship can turn like a snake, that DOES NOT MEAN, BY LAW, THE CARGOSHIP DOES NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING.

they all need to do something and that's all they can do to prevent accident , as two powered ship that come head head are both to give way

A commonly held misconception concerning the rules of marine navigation is that by following specific rules, a vessel can gain certain rights of way over other vessels.[14] No vessel ever has absolute "right of way" over other vessels. Rather, there can be a "give way" (burdened) vessel and a "stand on" (privileged) vessel, or there may be two give way vessels with no stand on vessel. A stand on vessel does not have an absolute right of way over any give way vessel, for if there is a risk of collision, a stand on vessel may still be obliged (under Rule 2 and Rule 17) to give way so as to avoid it, if doing so will be effective and is practicable.[15][16] Two power-driven vessels approaching each other head-to-head, are both deemed to be "give way" and both are required to alter course so as to avoid colliding with the other. Neither vessel has "right of way".[17]

7. Risk of collision
Vessels must use all available means to determine the risk of a collision, including the use of radar (if available) to get early warning of the risk of collision by radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects. (e.g. ARPA, AIS).
If the distance of any vessel is reducing and her compass bearing is not changing much or it is a large vessel or towing vessel at close distance, or if there is any doubt, then a risk of collision shall be deemed to exist.[11][page needed]
8. Action to avoid collision
Actions taken to avoid collision should be:

• positive
• obvious
• made in good time

9. Narrow channels

• A vessel proceeding along a narrow channel must keep to starboard.
• Small vessels or sailing vessels must not impede (larger) vessels which can navigate only within a narrow channel.
• Ships must not cross a channel if to do so would impede another vessel which can navigate only within that channel.

3.) Frigate turn to PORT (Which is the right thing to do by the way) instead of Starboard like the Controller asked does not excused the fact the Cargo ship did not make any adjustment.

and no in head to head situation you must turn starboard and let port of the ships pass face to face and there is a good reason for that (well at least in old days ,the oar was on starboard side of the ships and if the ships wanted to turn port there was a chance that the oars entangle to each other)

https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Collision-regulations

4.) If both ship were talking to each other and MOST IMPORTANTLY UNDERSTAND they are at a collision course, then the radar plot suggest the Cargo ship did NOTHING, which is violating International Maritime Law. Also, its ridiculous to claim The frigate have low RCS, because the Station were in communication to the frigate 1 hour before the collision, and the station would also contact with the cargo ship to clear off traffic, and both ship was in constant communication with each other, then it will not be like you said "The cargo-ship only aware of the Frigate when they see her"

if you look at here you see this is a class of ships with moderately reduced RADAR cross section
and again I wander what was your field of investigation if you even don't knew two ships that are heading toward each other must turn starboard not port ?
also you are not aware that a bigger ship that can move in limited part of channel , get the priority for those parts and smaller ships must travel in the shallower section of the channel

 

[Nilgiri]

@jhungary @AUSTERLITZ @Vergennes @waz

A very authoritative and interesting read on the incident:

https://verdigris.blog/2018/11/17/the-helge-ingstadt-incident-a-navigational-assessment/

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary @AUSTERLITZ @Vergennes @waz

A very authoritative and interesting read on the incident:

https://verdigris.blog/2018/11/17/the-helge-ingstadt-incident-a-navigational-assessment/

Well, if I have to put in my conjecture on the report.

Both ship cannot turn starboard, Helge Ingstad is too close to shore from her response to the request to Starboard and Sola TS have accompanied traffic on her starboard, she is being overtaken.

But judging from the SOLA TS radio traffic, she insisted Helge to Turn Starboard, to which the captain of Helge Ingstad repeatedly said he cannot do it, it's too close to shore.

And by imminent of the incident, SOLA TS does not do anything in response to the collision, while Helge Ingstad do the only thing she can do, which is a sharp turn to Port.

If I have to put up my educated guess the only way these two ship will not collide is if both Helge Ingstad and SOLA TS to slow down or halt, for Helge Ingstad, it would give her more option as to where she can turn, instead of going 17 knots, which hasten the reaction time required to avoid the collision.

On the other hand, when SOLA TS comes up on the collision course and into traffic, she also should have slow further down or even heave to, in order to let the passing group on her starboard pass first, thus, also giving her more option to deal with the collision course. At this stand, she is basically running herself in a box.

However, that is only based on the information we had already knew. I do not have other information on hand. SO I would not be able to put out any educated guess as to who is at fault, but preliminary information suggested that both side have contributed to the accident.