Well Done Norway! US Navy take notes!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by 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.

It can only calculate based on the data transmitted - if one of the vessels is in the middle of a turn while coming up to speed, the collision will only be warned once it has steadied up - in this case, shortly before the collision. That could be in question too, as Sola never settled on a speed before the collision.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It can only calculate based on the data transmitted - if one of the vessels is in the middle of a turn while coming up to speed, the collision will only be warned once it has steadied up - in this case, shortly before the collision. That could be in question too, as Sola never settled on a speed before the collision.

That is of course one weakness of people relying on AIS.

At the heavily backlit Vancouver Wharf by First Narrows under Lions Gate Bridge when assisting pilot to undock and turn a loaded bulk carrier (Copper Concentrate or Sulphur) I have often had to flash my spotlight in the direction of another vessel to get their attention.
Too bad the captain on Sola never tried that when first making radio contact

[Trond123]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

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.

That does not apply in Norway, as Colregs are valid everywhere a vessel can reach coming in from the open waters. We do have some country specific rules in addition to the international colregs, but these are valid everywhere in Norwegian territorial waters.

The area where the collision happened, is my "backyard" where I do a lot of boating.
Usually I listen to the VTS channel, and the quality of the radio procedures used by VTS and the ships, varies a lot. Some as bad as during the Sola TS / HI incident, but in general better.

From the radio conversations, it is apparent (as so often other times too) that Sola TS was not informed of either the 2 northbound freighters, nor HI (which VTS totally had forgot existed).
These two ships prevented Sola TS to go further east in the fjord (1-2 NM open, unused space available right there). But it is routine that departing tankers and northbound traffic in general, follow the west side of the fjord northbound, as they did this night. This forces southbound traffic (HI) to steer close to shore.
I was hoping the incident report would address this practice, but they did not.

When the tankers are close to the oil terminal/ pier, it can be difficult to see them as ships instead of parts of the terminal, but no way it can be mixed up when the ships are as far from the pier, as Sola TS was when the turn northbound (to 350 degrees I believe it was), was completed.

The incident reports also, in my opinion, fails to discuss the relatively small 10 degree turn to starboard, by Sola TS. Would this prevented the collision if HI had not initiated a port turn the last minute? Was there space for, say a 20 degree SB turn, or would this conflict with the 2 other northbound vessels?

This link is to a map of the area:
https://kart.gulesider.no/m/jGNgs

I have roughly marked the position of the collision.
Notice no TSS in this area, as many has speculated about previously.

Many errors were done from all parties involved, and I think we all can learn from this incident, both "weekend boaters" and professionals.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Trond123

These two ships prevented Sola TS to go further east in the fjord (1-2 NM open, unused space available right there). But it is routine that departing tankers and northbound traffic in general, follow the west side of the fjord northbound, as they did this night. This forces southbound traffic (HI) to steer close to shore.
I was hoping the incident report would address this practice, but they did not.

It was briefly mentioned, but they didn't discuss the consequences. But it is a good point; there was not a lot of passing room between the northbound ships and HI before Sola jumped into the mix.

Originally Posted by Trond123

When the tankers are close to the oil terminal/ pier, it can be difficult to see them as ships instead of parts of the terminal, but no way it can be mixed up when the ships are as far from the pier, as Sola TS was when the turn northbound (to 350 degrees I believe it was), was completed.

A lot of that might be perspective - from the angle that HI was approaching the gap between Sola and the pier was less noticeable. And the reconstruction shows that the two tugs filled the gap, looking like a continuation of the pier to the naked eye.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Trond123

Many errors were done from all parties involved, and I think we all can learn from this incident, both "weekend boaters" and professionals.

Thanks for sharing your local knowledge of the area and the common practice information.

It certainly appears that both ships and VTS were far too relaxed in their communications to have prevented such a stupid and unnecessary cost to taxpayers.

But I do congratulate the Norwegian investigation board for being transparent

[Trond123]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It was briefly mentioned, but they didn't discuss the consequences. But it is a good point; there was not a lot of passing room between the northbound ships and HI before Sola jumped into the mix.



A lot of that might be perspective - from the angle that HI was approaching the gap between Sola and the pier was less noticeable. And the reconstruction shows that the two tugs filled the gap, looking like a continuation of the pier to the naked eye.

Yes, there wasn't much room left for southbound traffic (HI), and this is pretty common unfortunately.

Maybe a future TSS could force northbound traffic further east, to at least give southbound traffic maneuvering options?
Hopefully "warship AIS" will be mandatory to use in the future, so at least VTS has the full picture of all traffic. (Less chance of forgetting those you can see and identify)

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Trond123

That does not apply in Norway, as Colregs are valid everywhere a vessel can reach coming in from the open waters. We do have some country specific rules in addition to the international colregs, but these are valid everywhere in Norwegian territorial waters.

Dan posted this in response to a question raised on my orignal post (thanks Dan). Bottom line is you are correct! As a US Master who does most of his work on this side of the Atlantic, I used an "Americanism". Mia Copa.

A better way of expressing my opinion, and I think you agree, is that when a military vessel is within "X" NM of a TSS, OR within "X" NM of shore, OR entering a harbor, they must transmit AIS.

While I do not have science to back this up- It is an ironic that military vessels that are specifically designed to have small radar signatures- only provide their radar signature for other vessels to "see" them.

[Trond123]

Originally Posted by Snore

Dan posted this in response to a question raised on my orignal post (thanks Dan). Bottom line is you are correct! As a US Master who does most of his work on this side of the Atlantic, I used an "Americanism". Mia Copa.

A better way of expressing my opinion, and I think you agree, is that when a military vessel is within "X" NM of a TSS, OR within "X" NM of shore, OR entering a harbor, they must transmit AIS.

While I do not have science to back this up- It is an ironic that military vessels that are specifically designed to have small radar signatures- only provide their radar signature for other vessels to "see" them.

The vessels are not stealth, and show up very well on radar.

Navy vessels sometimes have operational reasons to not transmit AIS for everyone to see. Understandable. Have some "AIS mandatory area" could be part of a general solution.

In this particular case, HI could have transmitted "warship AIS," which is encrypted. This would have enabled VTS to see their AIS.

Worth noting is that shortly after time of impact, HI turned on AIS transmissions. But the AIS position remained stationary near the place of collision, even after HI drifted to shore and grounded. It remained like this, at least for many hours, possibly longer. Can't remember.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Trond123

In this particular case, HI could have transmitted "warship AIS," which is encrypted. This would have enabled VTS to see their AIS.

Again assuming VTS had their equipment set up to receive it - ie. the proper crypto loaded. The report does mention that the capacity is there, it has been tested, and any attempt to make an agreement between VTS and the navy to utilize it died on the table. They did make a valid point that their system does not distinguish between AIS and WAIS, so the VTS operator could very well assume the other ships see something that only they see. Definitely needs to be sorted (procedurally or in the equipment) before they start using it, but it is definitely something they should be using.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Again assuming VTS had their equipment set up to receive it - ie. the proper crypto loaded. The report does mention that the capacity is there, it has been tested, and any attempt to make an agreement between VTS and the navy to utilize it died on the table. They did make a valid point that their system does not distinguish between AIS and WAIS, so the VTS operator could very well assume the other ships see something that only they see. Definitely needs to be sorted (procedurally or in the equipment) before they start using it, but it is definitely something they should be using.

I can't see why an FF or FFG would need to be stealthy in that situation?

[Lodesman]

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.

Originally Posted by Pete7

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'.

Originally Posted by Cadence

I can't see why an FF or FFG would need to be stealthy in that situation?

Time to dispel some myths. There are only a couple of "our" enemies that even have satellites, but pretty much everyone has access to the internet. So a lack of AIS does not necessarily hide our ships from the Russkies, but it keeps ISIS, Al Qaeda and every wannabe with a zodiac and 500 kilos of fertilizer from making a rather expensive "statement" - think USS Cole. Mohammed and Muhamad aren't going to attack our ships in the middle of the Oggin - they don't have navies, they don't have ships, and they don't have the technology or infrastructure to wage a sea battle with the big boys. But for all the cutting-edge tech, modern warships are still vulnerable to dumb threats such as mines. A dinghy full of C4 and a driver with a deathwish is like a 'smart' mine - the threat exists and it's close to shore, and very likely close to home.

[Snore]

I agree. But once the vessel is within sight of land, it doesn’t matter. The decidedly low-tech adversaries can see the vessel.

So if the vessel is in visual range- why not give other vessels AIS data for collision avoidance.

Electing not to transmit AIS assumes that the military crew is infallible—-
Something that has been proven wrong time and again.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Snore

I agree. But once the vessel is within sight of land, it doesn’t matter. The decidedly low-tech adversaries can see the vessel.

Not that easy to identify in the dark. And it's not like the Happy Terrorist is going to sit on the dock of the bay, waiting indefinitely for a warship to pass along. With any number of websites you can pick up AIS signals from all over, and therefore have time to plan an attack.

Notwithstanding the poor navigating by some naval watchkeepers, the corresponding lack of watchkeeping skills in the commercial ships is just as worrying. Not every vessel has AIS, or Cl A AIS - it should be concerning to those in our community that so many commercial watchkeepers seem to be incapable of handling anti-collision without an AIS track.

[Terje Vigen]

Originally Posted by Trond123

From the radio conversations, it is apparent (as so often other times too) that Sola TS was not informed of either the 2 northbound freighters, nor HI (which VTS totally had forgot existed).
These two ships prevented Sola TS to go further east in the fjord (1-2 NM open, unused space available right there). But it is routine that departing tankers and northbound traffic in general, follow the west side of the fjord northbound, as they did this night. This forces southbound traffic (HI) to steer close to shore.
I was hoping the incident report would address this practice, but they did not.

This is not correct.

First of all, the tanker SOLA TS did not sail "close to shore". The distance was more than half a nautical mile (about 1 km).

The Investigation Board did indeed discuss the route followed by tanker, see chapter 2.5.6 of their report.

It was not the 3 northbound vessels that hindered the tanker from sailing further east before turning north, this was done according to the planned route of the tanker, pre-plotted in the tanker's ECDIS, and duly discussed and agreed upon between the captain and the pilot beforehand.

The route was in accordance with common, well established practice of tankers sailing out from this oil terminal:

The common practice of tankers leaving the Sture Oil Terminal is to follow the shortest route northwards and then westwards out to sea. (See Fibure 41 from the report below). This is done to avoid having to build up speed on on the huge loaded tankers on an easterly course, approaching land on the eastern side of the fjord quite close ahead - and having to cross the main north/south fairway with its quite dense shipping traffic twice.

The Accident Investigation Board concluded that this was possibly the most safe routing, despite the fact that it is on the western side of the fjord. Furthermore, the Investigation Board explained that it was highly questionable if a TSS north of the Sture Oil Terminal would improve the overall safety.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Terje Vigen

The Accident Investigation Board concluded that this was possibly the most safe routing, despite the fact that it is on the western side of the fjord. Furthermore, the Investigation Board explained that it was highly questionable if a TSS north of the Sture Oil Terminal would improve the overall safety.

I agree, these are not constrained waters. Plenty of space to safely maneuver. Problem was simply inadequate /inexperienced lookouts / sloppy communication with VTS control, tanker pilot and warship.

And by "Lookout" I mean detection by all available methods