Well Done Norway! US Navy take notes!

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

To me, not being able to distinguish the nav lights is a bit of a red herring, because it's a common problem, especially when initially identifying an object at a distance.

So nav lights or not, they saw 'a group of lights' but wrote them off as being the Oil Terminal and ignored them - except for the later decision to alter to Port - to avoid this fixed object?

Instead if they had tracked, monitored, and plotted this 'group of lights'...

(just in case, as best practice, because you know, Oil Terminals also have Oil Tankers coming and going...)

...it would have become more clear that there was a separate object there, and that this object was moving - towards them.

I agree with, my reference to the deck lights being somewhat of a red herring. Ships of that size, especially military, probably haven't got someone on the bridge that knows what a red or green light means. I guess I was speaking of us little guys.

[JoeRobertJr]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Instead if they had tracked, monitored, and plotted this 'group of lights'...

(just in case, as best practice, because you know, Oil Terminals also have Oil Tankers coming and going...)

...it would have become more clear that there was a separate object there, and that this object was moving - towards them.

Concur. My memories of bridge watches on a Navy ship are they were pretty intense if we were anywhere near land or contacts. We had crew dedicated to plotting contacts and calculating CPAs and crew dedicated as lookouts. But beyond that, as a JO, I would make routine passes by both bridge wings to see contacts and navaids for myself, and then to the radar plotter to do my own grease pencil contact plots and CPA lines. If close to shore, I would trace the outline of the coast to help see if something there changed. I was trained to keep looking for that other problem we didn't know about yet. Proper watchstanding alone should have been enough to prevent the collision, regardless of the other contributing factors.

The investigation report video is very interesting and through provoking. Thanks to the OP for that.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Snore

I call BS on the deck lights!

In ASA 101 and on deliveries with new owners, I teach how to check a relative angle. If the angle does not change you will crash! Not a whole lot of brain power there. Basic seamanship.

You check relative angle on points of land you're passing?

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You check relative angle on points of land you're passing?

Yes! I check the angle on anything of concern. You don’t need a hand bearing compass to do this.

(Sarcasm follows so smile). This is a real high tech method, and relates to how it was done “in the day”. Stand steady on the deck and use the shroud, forestay, mast- wherever as a reference. Sight the object, ideally behind one of those parts of the boat.

Object moves to stern? It is clear that side of the boat. Object moves to bow? Likely you will pass astern. Object does not move? DANGER you are on collision course.

So yes if it is night and there is a lighthouse the angle better be moving towards stern. Or it isn’t the light I thought it was, or I am out of channel.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You check relative angle on points of land you're passing?

Unfortunately, I think a lot of navigators have forgotten the low tech method of getting a line of positions and even more have never learned.
http://www.working-the-sails.com/fixing_a_position.html

[Pelagic]

Easier explanation
https://youtu.be/63O4drvKrI8

[Lodesman]

If you're doubling the angle on the bow (or other such technique), or passing very close to an object or while experiencing concerning set/leeway, I can see taking bearings of fixed objects. But in most instances one typically only takes relative bearings of vessels (Rule 7). If you're in a motor-driven vessel and not pointing at the fixed object, you typically would not be in danger of hitting it.

[transmitterdan]

One thing seldom mentioned in these reports is ergonomics. In my view boating will continue to have disasters at some fixed rate unless it is willing to examine some fundamental stuff. Modern aviation would not be possible if that industry kept the same mindset as boating/shipping.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-dumb...led-macintosh/

It doesn’t always have to be “pilot error”.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If you're in a motor-driven vessel and not pointing at the fixed object, you typically would not be in danger of hitting it.

If you 100% for sure know what you are looking at- this is correct. Coming into a new port, I treat the MFD as a video reference and make visual contact with everything. Essentially recreating the MFD in my brain.

At night, even in ports that I know, the light I think is fixed may not be. Unless the angle changes, I assume a collision is possible. This just makes it harder for me to mess-up.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Snore

At night, even in ports that I know, the light I think is fixed may not be.

^^^ Wisdom. It should be simple really. This is first about mentality, and thereafter methodology.

And it is valid regardless of what navigational aids might be available.

Confirm, confirm, and confirm again.

A prudent navigator never relies solely on one source of information.

^^^ These words have been drummed into me since I first went on a boat.

And they continued to be drummed into me by those old school annoying tutors (who made me crazy, but they were right), even as electronic navigation became the norm.

Use all the tools and toys, but also use your wit.
Challenge what you see and what you think (and what you think you see...)

As a complete aside, those who are interested might like to look up a book called "We, the Navigators".

How was it possible to navigate across the greatest ocean in the world in ancient times, but now we can't manage to get ourselves down a designated fairway without getting into trouble, even with all manner of electronic aids assisting us...

Terrible

Something has definitely been lost along the way.

The use of skill, wit, thought. And the navigators 'sixth sense'.

It's a pity.

[Cadence]

BS on looking at deck light and port light angle changes when two vessels are on a head on collision coarse.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Cadence

BS on looking at deck light and port light angle changes when two vessels are on a head on collision coarse.

????? If the angle does not change your gonna crash. Be it approaching from astern, side or head-on.

The example I give students/newbies is imagine you are walking towards a door. The two sides of the door frame will increase in angle as you approach. If one does not increase in angle- you will hit it.

Try it out

The relative change in angle will even tell you what side you are closer to.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Snore

????? If the angle does not change your gonna crash. Be it approaching from astern, side or head-on.

The example I give students/newbies is imagine you are walking towards a door. The two sides of the door frame will increase in angle as you approach. If one does not increase in angle- you will hit it.

Try it out

The relative change in angle will even tell you what side you are closer to.

True if the oiler was making much headway. Or if the closing vessel wasn't doing 17 kns.. Something like that would be useful more for larger distances. Somehow just does not seem applicable here. The frigate's watch may be held accountable for many things, this does not seem like one. JMHO

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Snore

If you 100% for sure know what you are looking at- this is correct. Coming into a new port, I treat the MFD as a video reference and make visual contact with everything. Essentially recreating the MFD in my brain.

At night, even in ports that I know, the light I think is fixed may not be. Unless the angle changes, I assume a collision is possible. This just makes it harder for me to mess-up.

Well the issue appears that the OOW was 100% sure in his/her mind that it was a pier. Of course that was wrong, but the issue wasn't necessarily that they hadn't taken bearings of what they thought was a pier. I would typically run a PI off a pier in that sort of scenario, and even cursory glances at the radar would have made it clear that the "pier" was moving.

This wasn't addressed in the report (as far as I could tell, but it is a preliminary report), and not certain of the equipment fit and procedural standards on the Norwegian warship, but this occurred shortly following a watch turnover. One of the things I did on taking a watch was to systematically go through all the bridge equipment and ensure settings were where I prefer them - radar settings, backlight levels, echosounder alarms, etc. An inexperienced OOW may not have had the wherewithal to make those adjustments. Assuming the radar or tactical display allowed AIS overlays, the previous OOW may have suppressed that detail - and the new OOW didn't notice and thereby didn't pick up that there was a vessel at the pier. Hope to see more detail in subsequent reports.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Well the issue appears that the OOW was 100% sure in his/her mind that it was a pier. Of course that was wrong, but the issue wasn't necessarily that they hadn't taken bearings of what they thought was a pier. I would typically run a PI off a pier in that sort of scenario, and even cursory glances at the radar would have made it clear that the "pier" was moving.

This wasn't addressed in the report (as far as I could tell, but it is a preliminary report), and not certain of the equipment fit and procedural standards on the Norwegian warship, but this occurred shortly following a watch turnover. One of the things I did on taking a watch was to systematically go through all the bridge equipment and ensure settings were where I prefer them - radar settings, backlight levels, echosounder alarms, etc. An inexperienced OOW may not have had the wherewithal to make those adjustments. Assuming the radar or tactical display allowed AIS overlays, the previous OOW may have suppressed that detail - and the new OOW didn't notice and thereby didn't pick up that there was a vessel at the pier. Hope to see more detail in subsequent reports.

Good points. We also don't know what the previous watch told the new watch nor how long after the watch changed the collision occurred. At least I don't recall it being mentioned in the video.


It is possible that the previous watch stated the lights were a pier and the new watch didn't verify the info, or was distracted by other info more immediate in nature. Either way it was a big mistake.