Loss of Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad

[Good2Golf]

With what justification, SKT?

 

[KevinB]

With what justification, SKT?

If it hadn't been tied up there, it wouldn't have been hit clearly

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I wasn’t able to wrap my head around it either, but that is apparently the way Admiralty Courts roll….

So basically, they are similar to our House of Commons in some ways…

 

[Blackadder1916]

Admiralty Courts are weird places. When WIN got hit (while minding it’s own business while tied up alongside) in Esquimalt harbour by an American fishing trawler that lost control on it’s way to the Graving Dock, the Admiralty Court still assessed a small part of the blame to her.

Not disputing that Admiralty Courts may be weird places, however the "Admiralty Court" in HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. THE SHIP "AMERICAN DYNASTY" AND OTHERS did not render any decision as the suit was withdrawn when the owners of American Dynasty settled with Canada for a reported sum of $3.1 million.

The TSB report on the collision. Marine Investigation Report M13W0057 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

A search of court files for the Federal Court of Canada (which performs the function of Admiralty Courts in Canada) using the court number T-2482-14, ship name "American Dynasty" or party name "American Seafoods" provides a list of documents and actions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Clearly the Naval Technology writers didn't get the memo on the loss of the KNM Helge Ingstad.

Kongsberg partners with Navantia to support Norwegian F-310 frigates

Kongsberg has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Navantia to support the Norwegian Navy’s Fridjof Nansen-class F-310 frigates.

www.naval-technology.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Apparently the trial against the navigator starts Monday.

Pål Andre Gustavson thought he was going to die - NRK Westland

On Friday, November 8, 2018, Pål André Gustavson woke up suddenly in the dark with...

www.modularphonesforum.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It will be interesting to see how the Officer of the Watch defines their innocence in this particular case.

Norway naval officer denies negligence in oil tanker collision

A Norwegian naval officer on Monday denied negligence leading up to the 2018 collision between a warship he commanded and an oil tanker in which the military vessel sank.

www.reuters.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

It will be interesting to see how the Officer of the Watch defines their innocence in this particular case.

Norway naval officer denies negligence in oil tanker collision

A Norwegian naval officer on Monday denied negligence leading up to the 2018 collision between a warship he commanded and an oil tanker in which the military vessel sank.

www.reuters.com

Maybe he was busy forward....

 

[CBH99]

It will be interesting to see how the Officer of the Watch defines their innocence in this particular case.

Norway naval officer denies negligence in oil tanker collision

A Norwegian naval officer on Monday denied negligence leading up to the 2018 collision between a warship he commanded and an oil tanker in which the military vessel sank.

www.reuters.com

If there was ever a case of "Shut the heck up & let your lawyer do the talking..." this would be it

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

He is being prosecuted. That is a criminal trial and the criminal negligence test, not the tort of negligence that makes you liable to pay compensatory damages, is what is at issue.

The criminal test is more demanding on the prosecution. There has to be proof of criminal intent or of such level of carelessness as to amount to an absence of care for any resulting consequences of one's reckless actions. Simply failing to pay attention, or being distracted or failing to notice a developing situation you ought to have noticed, etc. does not necessarily constitute criminal negligence (far from it), else most car accidents would result in prosecution. Only the more callous ones attract such criminal attention.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

He is being prosecuted. That is a criminal trial and the criminal negligence test, not the tort of negligence that makes you liable to pay compensatory damages, is what is at issue.

The criminal test is more demanding on the prosecution. There has to be proof of criminal intent or of such level of carelessness as to amount to an absence of care for any resulting consequences of one's reckless actions. Simply failing to pay attention, or being distracted or failing to notice a developing situation you ought to have noticed, etc. does not necessarily constitute criminal negligence (far from it), else most car accidents would result in prosecution. Only the more callous ones attract such criminal attention.

Norway uses a Nordic version of Civil Law, does that still apply in this case?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Colin, in all countries, even those with Civil Law, criminal matters are dealt with separately. By definition, Civil law is the law that applies between people in their relations to one another. It is just as distinct as common law in the various Canadian provinces is distinct and separate from criminal or penal laws.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As the tanker had just cleared the terminal, it was likley moving to the outbound side when this took place. I doubt this defense will work.

Helge Ingstad CO: Tanker at fault for collision

The commanding officer of the frigate Helge Ingstad claimed that the tanker that the frigate struck was at fault because

safety4sea.com

 

[OceanBonfire]

The unidentified officer was given a 60-day conditional sentence by the Hordaland district court. He had denied the charge.

...

The duty commander was the only person prosecuted over the incident. The prosecution has claimed that negligent navigation was the main reason for the collision.

Norwegian officer found guilty of negligence over sinking of Navy frigate

The duty commander of a Norwegian Navy frigate that sank following a collision with an oil tanker, has been found guilty of negligence. The unidentified officer was given a 60-day conditional sentence by the Hordaland district court on Monday. He had denied the charge. The 134-meter (442-foot)...

apnews.com

 

[Navy_Pete]

I feel like things probably didn't go well in the 8 minutes prior to him taking the watch either that led up to the collision, so seems like a bit of scapegoating to be the only one held accountable.

Do understand why NWOs sometimes refuse to take the watch turnover though if things are an uncontrolled disaster.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I feel like things probably didn't go well in the 8 minutes prior to him taking the watch either that led up to the collision, so seems like a bit of scapegoating to be the only one held accountable.

Do understand why NWOs sometimes refuse to take the watch turnover though if things are an uncontrolled disaster.

Not sure that I agree. Taking the watch means that you have taken the watch. All of the responsibility now rests in one place.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not sure that I agree. Taking the watch means that you have taken the watch. All of the responsibility now rests in one place.

I'm not saying he isn't responsible, just that he's not solely responsible. The collision was still avoidable when he took the watch, but the whole sequence of events started well before that.

The outgoing should have identified that it was a tanker, the ship was also going pretty fast for that area, and at the end of the day the OOW has charge on behalf of the CO, so if they are young and inexperienced there are a few people above the chain that put them in that position as well.

The article below has a pretty good example of the lessons learned, and there are a number of systematic issues there well beyond the OOW that lead to the collision, as well as mistakes that lead to the vessel sinking. All in hindsight, so wouldn't fault the MEO for making a call, but it's interesting from a LL/transparency point of view if you compare that to the RCN approach of bury it and quietly kill the careers of people they unofficially blame.

Learning the lessons – the loss the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad | Navy Lookout

 

[OldSolduer]

I feel like things probably didn't go well in the 8 minutes prior to him taking the watch either that led up to the collision, so seems like a bit of scapegoating to be the only one held accountable.

Do understand why NWOs sometimes refuse to take the watch turnover though if things are an uncontrolled disaster.

So from what I understand he had been on duty 8 minutes. hmmmm but the Navies of the world do things their way.

So the practice we had in the Bn CP was that the DOs would not hand over at the scheduled time IF there was a contact on going until the contact was resolved or the oncoming had a clear understanding of what was going on. Just my two cents.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So from what I understand he had been on duty 8 minutes. hmmmm but the Navies of the world do things their way.

So the practice we had in the Bn CP was that the DOs would not hand over at the scheduled time IF there was a contact on going until the contact was resolved or the oncoming had a clear understanding of what was going on. Just my two cents.

It is the same for the RCN (from my observation). The oncoming OOW takes the watch once they indicated that they understand the situation and have the watch. The notebook gets signed ending the previous watch. Legally, it is all on the new OOW at that point.