# Collision - Frigate Damaged



## Binnacle (Jul 22, 2005)

Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad lists after collision
A frigate that collided with an oil tanker in a Norwegian fjord ran aground and started taking on water.

Norway's military tried to stop the KNM Helge Ingstad from sinking after eight people were hurt and 137 were taken off the ship.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world...n-frigate-helge-ingstad-lists-after-collision


----------



## 8575 (Sep 8, 2006)

Definitely Board of Inquiry stuff and maybe Court Martial!!


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

Actually she was beached because she was taking in water, and not taking in water because she grounded. The tanker had the right of way, had pilot onboard, and was escorted by a tug. Both the tanker and the coastguard warned the frigate before the collision, but was answered that they "had full control".


----------



## Frank P (Mar 13, 2005)

Stein, started a thread about the same ship indecent yesterday......

https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=289253

Cheers Frank


----------



## seaman38 (Mar 16, 2016)

Frank P said:


> Stein, started a thread about the same ship indecent yesterday......
> 
> https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=289253
> 
> Cheers Frank


Seems they are following the tradition of U S Navy vessels and think their tin cans can shove heavy merchant vessels out of the way. 

Probably like all navy vessels, all overmanned on the bridge, so that no one knows who gave the last order, or whether it was heard or not.

One Thames pilot onboard a US Aircraft carrier counted fifty personnel on the bridge as he was piloting up river, never did find out who was in charge as he talked directly to the quartermaster, even remembering to use Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard.

Said he never got to use those immortal words favoured in US Navy movies 'Full ahead both'


----------



## 8575 (Sep 8, 2006)

seaman38 said:


> Seems they are following the tradition of U S Navy vessels and think their tin cans can shove heavy merchant vessels out of the way.
> 
> Probably like all navy vessels, all overmanned on the bridge, so that no one knows who gave the last order, or whether it was heard or not.
> 
> ...


Or even "All ahead full".


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

I was going to say something along those lines. Surely "full ahead both" is not an exclusive Americanism - assuming one has two shafts to urge-on in one way or another.

("All ahead together"? A new world attempt to avoid more complicated slip calculations of multiscrew craft, perhaps?).


----------



## YM-Mundrabilla (Mar 29, 2008)

If American doesn't the word 'flank' come into it somewhere or have I been watching too many American movies?


----------



## seaman38 (Mar 16, 2016)

YM-Mundrabilla said:


> If American doesn't the word 'flank' come into it somewhere or have I been watching too many American movies?


Also remember 'Flank speed' whatever that may be.

Apparently the MN vessel warned the frigate he was on a collision course as did the coastguard and port control and all were advised by the frigate 'we have the situation under control' god knows what would have happened if they had not been under control (Smoke)


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

A new twist or turn in the collision course? It has been discovered that some of he very large number of people aboard the frigate were Americans. What were they doing there? "The ship is from Barcelona - I know nooothing," - has so far been the top brass story...


----------



## seaman38 (Mar 16, 2016)

stein said:


> A new twist or turn in the collision course? It has been discovered that some of he very large number of people aboard the frigate were Americans. What were they doing there? QUOTE]
> 
> That explains it all, the Americans were teaching them what they had learnt off Japan and Korea in the past twelve months when they tried to push 3 merchant ships aside.


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

stein said:


> A new twist or turn in the collision course? It has been discovered that some of he very large number of people aboard the frigate were Americans. What were they doing there? "The ship is from Barcelona - I know nooothing," - has so far been the top brass story...


The weapon system electronics are American


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

The Norwegian navy has now presented an official explanation: the tanker was to blame inasmuch as they were carrying so much deck light that that their navigation lights were invisible, and this, combined with the tanker's slow movement, made it necessary to believe that the tanker was a stationary entitry on land. Therefore any evasive movement would mean that they would hit this, although not the tanker which they believed further ahead ... The frigate's radar was on, btw, and though in my time this instrument had a pyramidical rubber cowl on top, so that no one but the one looking directly into it could observe anything, I do dare to suppose that the radar screen is now out in the open, and would be observable to all of the six Norwegians and one American on the Frigate's bridge.


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

Also the water tight compartments were not water tight.. I expect the tanker will get the blame. tho i think the VTS has a lot to be desired they should not have let go her until the channel was clear particular in view of no one knew were the war ship was due her turning her ais transmitter off.. I have been down that particular water many times and it should have been wide enough the sides are deep with many small rocks.off the islands.


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

stein said:


> combined with the tanker's slow movement, made it necessary to believe that the tanker was a stationary entitry on land.
> .




So they thought the ship was actually a stationary 'something' on land? Rocks are just as lethal! Who goes straight toward a cluster of lights without thinking what you are looking at? 

Inexperienced and too many people on the bridge.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Very good, Stephen. Capt. Smith would, no doubt, have continued his otherwise successful career had the iceberg been illuminated.


Whilst the frigate may have not been transmitting AIS, although such stealth in closed waters seems 'obstinate'. It would still, I assume (although not necessarily approve) that it would have been acting on a receive basis and further identifying a radar ship target.


----------



## Julian Calvin (Feb 2, 2011)

Change of watch on the frigate likely had some effect on the resulting encounter. Changeover seemed to take minutes. Did we not all, particularly during stand-by, ensure incoming watch was alert/aware before we left the bridge.
Frigate was reported to be doing seventeen knots at time of collision. What actual speed was tanker making?


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

I suspect hardly any. also by local bye law a large tug would be attached to the stern. until she out of vts waters.


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

Julian Calvin said:


> Change of watch on the frigate likely had some effect on the resulting encounter. Changeover seemed to take minutes. Did we not all, particularly during stand-by, ensure incoming watch was alert/aware before we left the bridge.
> Frigate was reported to be doing seventeen knots at time of collision. What actual speed was tanker making?


6 knots..... couldn't get out of her own way.....let alone the warship's ..


----------



## Frank P (Mar 13, 2005)

A Norwegian journalist and military expert has put forward a theory that there could have been too many women on the bridge of the frigate..

below is some of what he said.

Quote " Prior to the dramatic incident, involving the 'unsinkable' frigate KNM HELGE INGSTAD , the Norwegian Armed Forces own magazine boasted that four out of five navigators on the warship were women. Without making concrete accusations, Norwegian journalist, military expert and political analyst Helge Lurås has suggested that the dramatic incident is closely related to another highly controversial topic, namely the proportion of women in the Norwegian Armed Forces. "Should you judge by sound records and expert statements, glaring and almost incomprehensible human errors were made. The Navy's people appear to be amateurs," Helge Lurås wrote in his opinion piece in the magazine Resett. Lurås suggested that the mandatory inclusion of women on a quota arrangement and with different requirements had had an effect on the professional culture of Norwegian Defence. "For the Armed Forces in the age of political correctness, increasing the number of women in the agency has become a goal in itself. It is assumed that women make the Armed Forces better. Those who should think otherwise, receive a plain message that their opinions are undesirable," Lurås wrote. 

Lurås recalled Forsvarets Forum, the Norwegian Armed Forces own magazine, boasting that four out of five navigators at the KNM HELGE INGSTAD were women. He went on to quote Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus, navigation officer at KNM HELGE INGSTAD , who called having many women on board an 'advantage', a 'natural thing' and a 'completely different and positive environment'. 
Lurås explained the Navy's reticence to give out the details of the incident as reluctance to draw attention to the gender of those who were at the the helm at that time. Lurås, while admitting that both men and women can make mistakes, questioned whether it should remain a priority for the Armed Forces to spend energy and resources on 'integration' and creating a 'balanced' work environment. "People want answers as to what went wrong when a NOK 4 billion ship now lies in a Norwegian fjord. And they deserve them, *however politically incorrect they may be*," Lurås wrote” Quote


----------



## garryNorton (Aug 6, 2018)

Having piloted American warships I find it entirely wrong that you did not know who was in charge as all their ships introduce you to their commander when you come on board, I have piloted several hundred American warships, the British warships on the other hand do not often tell you as they only take pilots under sufferance and leave things up to their CPO's.
Women on the bridge I find more attentive to their job and are not any worse than their male counter parts.
Tankers often have their deck lights on when carrying out operations like transferring cargo,cleaning tanks or inerting.
I find some of the comments in the above thread show ignorance or bious.


----------

