Well Done Norway! US Navy take notes!

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

One thing that strikes me from reading all of this (and I really don't want to create further overreliance on technology, but ) ... we have face recognition and motion analysis and autonomous vehicles - all of which involve complex calculations in real-time...

There is technology being developed that I've not seen mentioned in any threads on this site...eye scanning technology. It's fairly Orwellian, but can monitor for and detect visual gaze and blink parameters consistent with fatigue/impairment and task saturation.
It's really close to having a Hal 9000 staring at you, prepared to let you know that you look confused (connected to an alarm or autopilot control program to take over). Much research in the aviation realm.
See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...erature_Review
Simple car version:
https://youtu.be/_aBZlQaIvmY?t=25
Aviation study (hypoxia)
https://youtu.be/4K310fNJFfc?t=189

[Kit_L]

Was there any mention of the officers of the watch using decent binoculars? With the 7 x 50s that I have, the hull shape would be visible, I would think, even with that blaze of deck lights.

Sincere thanks to the OP, too; the whole saga is fascinating.

And thanks to the poster above who wrote:

In general, never to turn to Port. Turn to Starboard. Slow Down. Stop (or combination thereof).

[unbusted67]

...cuz the navy

Originally Posted by Shrew

Tanker: "Solas TS" is registered in Malta

Frigate: “KNM Helge Ingstad” is a Norwegian Navy vessel.

Could you elaborate on how the US is involved and "should be taking notes"?

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Kit_L

Was there any mention of the officers of the watch using decent binoculars? With the 7 x 50s that I have, the hull shape would be visible, I would think, even with that blaze of deck lights.

For non professional mariners this is a good reminder too.

Binoculars don't only magnify but they also gather light, and are very useful in low light and night time conditions.

I very miss my Steiner 7 x 50s which were unfortunately taken from me some years ago.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

There is technology being developed that I've not seen mentioned in any threads on this site...eye scanning technology. It's fairly Orwellian, but can monitor for and detect visual gaze and blink parameters consistent with fatigue/impairment and task saturation.
It's really close to having a Hal 9000 staring at you, prepared to let you know that you look confused (connected to an alarm or autopilot control program to take over). Much research in the aviation realm.
See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...erature_Review
Simple car version:
https://youtu.be/_aBZlQaIvmY?t=25
Aviation study (hypoxia)
https://youtu.be/4K310fNJFfc?t=189

We've had eyeball tracking in marketing and research for several years now, to track how users scan and interact with different visual presentations and layouts. About 5 years ago a portable tracking rig was around CDN$5k. And I think I've seen the more basic eye-response detection you're referring to which assesses attention and wakefulness.

I was mainly referring to the relatively simple task of monitoring big, slow-moving things like ships (from AIS or radar data) and projecting their paths, then determining who's gonna hit who from path intersections.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I was mainly referring to the relatively simple task of monitoring big, slow-moving things like ships (from AIS or radar data) and projecting their paths, then determining who's gonna hit who from path intersections.

This does exist, but in busy areas you could have alarms going off somewhat regularly as you get swept by a maneuvering ship. In this case, those systems were apparently switched off inshore for that reason.

I often glance at such path projections since it helps calibrate my sense of relative speeds and it certainly makes it easier to keep clear of traffic.

[Lodesman]

Well it took a while to go through all 200 odd pages of the report, and it generally seems thorough, although I would suggest they focussed primarily on explaining away the "situational awareness" of the OOW on HI. I could probably add a couple more issues about the way the Norwegian Navy does its business, but I think it's shocking that the report omits the many egregious errors made on SolaTS. Notwithstanding the lack in VTS, they hadn't made any plan to deal with any of the approaching ships prior to leaving the pier, didn't even plot those ships, didn't even have their radars scaled to see those ships, made no contact with them whatsoever. Worse yet the pilot apparently decided to treat HI as the give way vessel, without any consideration that Sola had not maintained course, nor speed. There was no mention in the report that the 10° alteration to stbd that they made not only was so small as to not be perceivable to another ship, that it actually brought them into collision. At no point did it appear the master or pilot took bearings of HI - as has been stated; that's nav 101.

All the blather about the Sola not being plotted on radar, or the AIS not being used is a bit of a red herring - during the entire period Sola was turning and accelerating. A collision situation might not have registered by either system until it had gotten to extremis.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Well it took a while to go through all 200 odd pages of the report, and it generally seems thorough, although I would suggest they focussed primarily on explaining away the "situational awareness" of the OOW on HI. I could probably add a couple more issues about the way the Norwegian Navy does its business, but I think it's shocking that the report omits the many egregious errors made on SolaTS. Notwithstanding the lack in VTS, they hadn't made any plan to deal with any of the approaching ships prior to leaving the pier, didn't even plot those ships, didn't even have their radars scaled to see those ships, made no contact with them whatsoever. Worse yet the pilot apparently decided to treat HI as the give way vessel, without any consideration that Sola had not maintained course, nor speed. There was no mention in the report that the 10° alteration to stbd that they made not only was so small as to not be perceivable to another ship, that it actually brought them into collision. At no point did it appear the master or pilot took bearings of HI - as has been stated; that's nav 101.

All the blather about the Sola not being plotted on radar, or the AIS not being used is a bit of a red herring - during the entire period Sola was turning and accelerating. A collision situation might not have registered by either system until it had gotten to extremis.

Exactly! enough blame to go around[emoji106]

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

That is quite normal when ships first get underway at night to have crew still working on deck, getting ready for sea

Also common is that the ships navigation lights are lost in the background clutter of shore lights when leaving a large commercial dock .

The obvious failure in this collision, was the lack of and vague communication between the Tanker Pilot/ Vessel Traffic Services / and the young navy crew.

VTS was not on the ball!

Have seen similar situations handled far more professionally many times during my career at sea.

1. Pilot of Large ship makes a securité call that they are getting underway from a heavily backlit dock

2. At time of tanker departure VTS gives them list of approaching vessels

4. Quite normal and prudent for VTS to have called navy ship that was not transmitting AIS to confirm that they were aware of Tanker now underway.

5.VTS who SHOULD have continued to track Navy ship that had registered their presence at a "call in point".....

Should have called them again to warn them of the imminent danger and give them clear avoidance instructions.


None of this was difficult or challenging...

VTS failed to support the two vessels and both pilot and navy watchkeeper were sloppy in their communications by failing to establish identity and relational aspects

We seem to agree on the basic sloppiness all around

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Snore

IMHO military ships transiting a TSS or inside the COLREGS line should be required to transmit AIS. “Out there” secrecy is critical. But in a TSS or harbor everyone can see you anyway.

IMHO military vessels should transmit all the time. Turning off AIS just hides you from the good guys. The bad guys don't need AIS to know were you are, a few minutes with a satellite will tell them exactly what they want to know. Actually a military vessel turning off AIS is likely to arouse more suspicion from the bad guys and implies 'ops' rather than routine 'exercises'.

Where is "inside the colregs line" ?

Pete

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Where is "inside the colregs line" ?



Pete

In the US it is the boundary outside of which international Colregs are in force. Inside the boundary a very slightly modified set of inland rules apply.

[Pete7]

Ah, okay thanks

Pete

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by 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.

The points are littered with wrecks who believed that and then discovered that there was a current setting them onto the rocks. Nowadays, you can use your chartplotter and project your track to stay out of trouble.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

The points are littered with wrecks who believed that and then discovered that there was a current setting them onto the rocks. Nowadays, you can use your chartplotter and project your track to stay out of trouble.

Lol....those points are littered with bad navigators.... a chart plotter does not a navigator make. [emoji57]

[myocean]

Incredible.
How is this possible? How can the crew be so ignorant against the AIS?
Even when in "silent mode", a simple AIS device like the WatchMate automatically calculates CPA (closest point of approach) and gives collision warnings.
This accident would have been practically impossible on our boat already with only 2 weeks of experience.