He is wearing a uniform, still employed in the Armed Forces, and has a 60-day suspended prison sentence against him. This judgment is not legally binding, because the case has been appealed to the Gulating Court of Appeal. The watchman who stood on the bridge when KNM “Helge Ingstad” collided with the tanker “Sola TS” in 2018 is clear and determined in the Court of Appeal. He admits he made a misjudgment. Helge Ingstad before it went completely underwater. The boat had to be condemned. Photo: Coast Guard But he had the wrong understanding of the situation in the fatal minutes, is the explanation. System failures and organizational errors meant that the misunderstanding was not corrected. Towards the end of the court day, the defendant’s statement could begin. He has received a total of 14 hours of the court’s time. Although it wasn’t a boat – We saw a light sea when we approached the Sture terminal, an object that we estimate is a fish farm or something else that is connected to the port facility, explained the warden. He has notes with him, and the case is far back in time. Court administrator Elisabeth Deinboll nevertheless asks that he explain himself freely from memory. She constantly asks follow-up questions. – My opinion is that it was clarified that this was not an object that would affect our voyage. We thought it was a platform or something that didn’t behave like a vessel, said the watch commander. – So you made no assessment of how far from land this object was? – No, that’s right, said the warden. Video playback of a review from the bridge on a similar frigate as KNM Helge Ingstad. The Nansen class – which are the Norwegian Defense Forces’ five frigates – were built in Spain and cost NOK 4.3 billion for each boat. Four are currently in operation. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news The warden says he was fooled by the light from “Sola TS”. The deck lights on the tanker were on when the frigate came into contact. The alarm went off – An alarm went off indicating a danger of collision on the bridge, and the assistant reported that this alarm was triggered by one of the other ships that we had control of, (there were three other boats in the fjord, ed. note) and we acknowledged this alarm, explained the warden. – I would sincerely wish that there was something that triggered a reaction to investigate more closely what the light object actually was, he said further. – I know now, and I knew then, that background lighting and distance judgment against light is difficult to achieve in the dark. But that didn’t prompt me to investigate further, he said. – You refer to it as the “blocks” and “platform” in VHF communication. What thoughts went through your mind? – It was undefined in my head what it was. We had talked about it in the handover that this could be a platform. In my mind it was not a vessel that was on its way, explained the watch commander. – Did the best he could The district court’s verdict, which came earlier this year, was not unanimous. One of the judges, Pål Morten Hjulstad, dissented and believed that “punishment in this case has little or no individual preventive effect (…) (…) strange that such a junior athlete can be blamed for a system failure (…)” In other words: There are many others who have failed and contributed to the accident happening, the minority believed. Another wording in the original sentence is that “he did the best he could”. Defender Christian Lundin used this point in his introductory speech. Lawyer Christian Lundin is defending the accused warden. Photo: Lise Åserud / NTB – He was actually delusional when the collision happened, and none of the privates had a bridge watch certificate as they should have, Lundin said today. He adds that Fedje VTS made mistakes, “Sola TS” had all its deck lights on and made mistakes – and the defense did not have an adequate training programme. – At a system level, there has not been sufficient work on security. The corporate sentence shows this, said the defender. 2,634 pages of case documents must be decided by the Court of Appeal in the appeal case. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news All these circumstances were also assessed by the district court, which awarded the defense NOK 10 million in corporate punishment. Careful review West police district has investigated the case and put together map movements and radio communications. In the playback, it is clearly heard that the bridge at KNM “Helge Ingstad” thinks the approaching tanker is a platform or some blocks with lights. State Attorney Benedikte Høgseth and State Attorney Magne Kvamme Sylta Photo: John Inge Johansen / news The prosecution believes that the misjudgment is negligent anyway and that the commander of the bridge on the frigate was responsible for putting 137 lives at risk. – This is about an assessment of where the main responsibility lies, it is the case that a watch commander has the primary responsibility on the bridge for safe navigation, says state attorney Magne Kvamme Sylta.
ttn-69
The appeal case after the “Helge Ingstad” accident continues – news Vestland
