After the fateful collision in the Hjeltefjorden, where the Norwegian Defense Forces lost one of its five frigates, the rules for navigators in the Navy have been tightened up considerably: You must have 12 months of sailing time before you can be cleared as a watch commander You must have 12 months of sailing time as a cleared watch commander before one is given training responsibility The watch commander who navigated KNM “Helge Ingstad” on the night of the accident had only been authorized watch commander for eight months when the crash happened. On the bridge there were two people undergoing training. He was given responsibility for training already after just under four months as a trusted watch commander. Today, such a seal – where such an inexperienced watch commander was responsible for training – would therefore be illegal in the Norwegian Navy. – It was a breach of our internal regulations. It is not allowed in the Navy today, confirms the head of the Navy, Rune Andersen. Photo: Ørn E. Borgen / NTB Would not meet new requirements The tightening of the Navy’s internal regulations is a direct consequence of the collision in the Hjeltefjorden. Before the accident, there was no set time requirement for when a duty officer with clearance could train other duty officers. It was also not stipulated that a watch commander had to have sailed for 12 months to be cleared. Thus, the now indicted watch commander would not have been allowed to have the overall responsibility – since he lacked 12 months’ driving time and two of the watch team were undergoing training. – The situation in which the person concerned was found would not have arisen if these requirements had been implemented in advance, says confederation leader Torbjørn Bongo of the Norwegian Officers’ and Specialists’ Association. OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION: Association leader Torbjørn Bongo in the Norwegian Officers’ and Specialists’ Association. Photo: Øyvind Bye Skille / news Weaknesses pointed out Both the Accident Investigation Board’s recommendations and the Norwegian Navy’s own review after the frigate accident pointed to weaknesses in the training and clearance process of watch commanders. Before the accident, it was the ship’s commander on the individual frigate’s responsibility to give watch commanders the authorization to carry out training based on a health assessment of whether the person was fit. – What existed was a clearance and checklist of points and topics that the various candidates had to go through, and within which they had to demonstrate skills, explains Chief of Naval Staff Andersen. He himself will testify in the trial against the accused warden, and therefore does not wish to comment on matters that will be clarified in court. Bongo in NOF expects that all circumstances that show the extent of system changes will be heavily highlighted in court. – I feel that these changes are a lesson the Navy has learned from the reports after the accident. What I expect will be the main discussion in the court case is where responsibility should be placed. Is it primarily the navigator who should be held responsible, or is it the underlying reasons that contributed to things going wrong? Perceived pressure In court this week, the accused watch commander explained what happened on the bridge. At the same time as he had to navigate the warship through the Hjeltefjorden, he had to ensure that a watch commander in training and a watch commander assistant in training received the follow-up they should have. The 33-year-old had only been in charge of the ship for eight minutes when it crashed into the tanker “Sola TS”. By then he had been a trusted guard commander for 205 days. The 33-year-old has explained that he had a fixed image of the situation. He has said that he lacked the capacity and experience to cope with the situation that arose. – He experienced that there was pressure to get security guards cleared through the system. This will also be highlighted in the main negotiations, said defender Christian Lundin to news this week. DEFENDER: Lawyer Christian Lundin in an interview with news during the trial in Hordaland district court. Photo: Jon Bolstad / news System failure or negligence? The defenders have argued in court that the accident was the result of a long series of system errors and weaknesses. The warden’s actions – or lack of actions – were just the latest in a long series of mistakes, they believe. State prosecutor Benedikte Høgseth began the last week of court by rejecting the allegation outright. The prosecution said, however, that several referred to the warden as skilled. – His omission was not a result of system failure, but individual decisions. He was careless, said Høgseth.
ttn-69
Today, what happened on the bridge would not have been legal – news Vestland
