– These minutes I have thought about, imagined, dreamed about and had nightmares about x number of thousands of times. That’s what the 33-year-old watch commander who has been prosecuted after the frigate accident says. For the first time, the stage was set for his explanation: How did the commander of the watch feel when his frigate collided with the tanker “Sola TS” and sank? The defender of the watch commander believes that much of the sinking is due to system errors. . The prosecutor, on the other hand, believes that the accident happened because of the duty manager’s individual decisions. Thought another vessel called the frigate The closer he got to the collision in his explanation, the more difficult it became for the commander of the watch to express himself. The warden took several breaks and thought about it. The duty manager went through how he understood the situation from the moment he arrived on the bridge until the collision. THE WITNESS BOX: The warden sat in the witness box and was questioned by state prosecutor Magne Kvamme Sylta. Among other things, the duty manager could not answer why he did not think that the object at the Sture terminal could be a boat. Photo: Jon Bolstad / news This evening there were many vessels in the fjord. Forward to starboard, the frigate had a luminous object, the watch commander explained. He discussed this with his outgoing guard chief colleague, and they had agreed that the object had to be something standing still at Stureterminalen, probably a platform. When “Helge Ingstad” was then called out on the radio, he thought it was a ship approaching on the port side, which would have a greater distance to the frigate. – There were no indications that the situation had changed, he says. Audio logs shown in court show that the Sola TS identified itself when the ship called “Helge Ingstad”. Pilot: – Helge Ingstad, can you hear Sola TS? Watch chief: – Helge Ingstad. Watch chief: – Are you the one coming here? are we going too close to the e… blocks/lights. The pilot: – Turn to starboard if you are the one coming here. The watch chief: – I… a couple of degrees to starboard over as soon as we have passed e…, passed e….. the platform we have on starboard. Believes the communication did not show the degree of seriousness The duty manager believes that the communication did not indicate that something serious was about to happen. Eventually it dawned on him that the light in front of him was not standing still, but a ship in motion: – When it comes to the connection “you must at least do something”, then I think, “oh yes, it’s a vessel we have heading towards us”. Then my window to do something was virtually closed, at least to go over to starboard, he says. Instead he turned hard to port, then hard to starboard. The last thing to get the stern on the boat. Criticizing the traffic center at Fedje, the Warden used the opportunity to say that it is easy to have hindsight. He referred to sound logs and an overview of radars that were presented in court, and says that this is a compilation of information that he did not have at the time. He also aims at the traffic center at Fedje. The watch commander pointed out that there were six vessels in the area, in addition to KNM “Helge Ingstad”. The indictment against the watch commander at KNM “Helge Ingstad” The now 33-year-old man who was the watch commander on the bridge of KNM “Helge Ingstad” when it collided with “Sola TS” on the night of 8 November 2018, has been charged with a breach of section 356 of the Criminal Code : “for negligently causing marine damage, which could easily result in the loss of human life”. He is also prosecuted under the Military Penal Code section 78, first and third paragraphs: “for, as a commanding officer, having been guilty of negligence or carelessness in the performance of his duties, and significant damage has been caused […]». The grounds are described as follows in the indictment, which was drawn up by order of the Attorney General: “On the night of Thursday 8 November 2018, in the time until around 04.01, as responsible navigator, he led the frigate KNM Helge Ingstad south across the Hjeltefjord, and followed a pre-planned and validated course, with a speed of approx. 17 knots and with AIS in passive mode. He did not exercise the care, and did not take the precautions, which safe navigation requires. During the change of guard, at the time 03.43–03.53, he discussed with the outgoing watch commander what an illuminated object at Stureterminalen could be, but did not sufficiently investigate whether it was stationary/land-based or a vessel at shore. He also did not register that a tanker approx. at 03.45, over VHF channel 80, was cleared from Fedje sjøtrafikksentral for departure from Stureterminalen, and was going north. After this, he also failed to use available navigational aids such as radar and AIS plotting, and also did not engage other people in the bridge watch team to find out more about the object. From approx. at 03.59.30 he gave orders for course changes in the port direction without having investigated why it was necessary to deviate from the pre-planned and validated course. About. at At 04.00 he received a call over VHF from Sola TS where he, among other things, was asked to turn to starboard immediately, but did not take measures to prevent danger and damage, such as reducing speed and clarifying from whom and why he was asked to turn to starboard, in order to be able to carry out an adequate evasive manoeuvre. This meant that KNM Helge Ingstad at 04.01.15 collided with Sola TS outside Stureterminalen in Øygarden. The frigate suffered extensive material damage to the hull on the starboard side, and the crew lost control of the steering so that the frigate went towards land and ground support. There was thus a risk of loss of life for the crew. The Sola TS suffered minor material damage.” The penalty for offenses under section 356 of the Criminal Code is a fine or imprisonment for up to three years. For violations of section 78 of the Military Penal Code, the penalty is up to two years. The duty manager describes a normal situation as an interaction between all the actors in the sea area. – Fedje clears a departure (the departure for Sola TS from Stureterminalen, journal note) without being aware of everything and everyone. They do not take action, but let the situation go so far that the window to do something is closed, he says. The prosecutor’s attack on the understanding of the situation After the free explanation, it was the prosecutor’s office that started its questioning of the accused. State prosecutor Magne Kvamme Sylta drilled into the warden’s explanation about the decisive minutes before the collision. Then the watch commander’s understanding of reality was that the Sola TS was an object lying at rest on land. Sylta had many questions about whether those on the bridge should have realized that there was an oil tanker there. QUESTIONING: Prosecutor Magne Kvamme Sylta started his questioning of the accused. The questioning will continue for the next court days. Photo: Marit Hommedal / NTB – Someone and we commented on whether it was a fish farm, or whether it was a platform. My understanding then was that we agreed that it was a stationary object, said the watch commander. – Why would there be fish farming at the oil terminal? asked prosecutor Sylta. – Nothing was given any thought. It was said and drawn immediately afterwards. We walked away from that. – But platform then? At an oil terminal? – Yes, a little further south in the Hjeltefjorden, near Ågotnes, there are platforms every now and then. – But in a shipping port? A platform? You are two trained navigators, how could you think that? Is it possible to get closer to why? – No I do not think so. WRENCH: “Helge Ingstad” in the jetties in Øygarden, 8 November 2018. The frigate collided with a tanker at the Sture terminal. Photo: Jan Kåre Ness / NTB The warden was asked a question about a tanker: I can’t answer that The public prosecutor asked what tools they had at their disposal to find out if the object was stationary and was told by the warden that there were many tools that could be used of. The head of the watch said in his free explanation that he perceived the luminous object as something stationary lying on land. District court judge Anne Grete Larsen asked Hestnes: – Why didn’t you think that there was a boat there? – No, unfortunately, I cannot answer that, answered the defendant.
ttn-69
– I have had nightmares about these minutes several thousand times – news Vestland
