Ship collision off Hull

[sailorbenji]

If the OoW was looking at the anchored ship's AIS it could be that the transmitted AIS was faulty. I once followed a yacht past the Roche Dovres on passage from St Peter Port to Lezardrieux . I could see a target following me 1.5 miles behind on my port quarter but not see the vessel. The yacht was 1.5 miles in front on my stbd quarter. I wathed the target sail straight through the lighthouse. That made me realise that the transmitted signal from the yacht was incorrect. All other targets on my plotter seemed correct.
So if the anchored ship was doing the same thing, then Solong may have thought that it was passing with room to spare. Especially if its radar was not working & the OoW was relying on the AIS.

I've seen similar, caused by a massive offset (>1NM) being input into the AIS device (the capability to do that is intended to allow a ship/vessel of significant size to specify exactly where the AIS GPS receiver is located along its length...).
If that was the case here though, the MarineTraffic data would also be wrong in the same way. The received AIS data (which is also what all the news channels are using) seems to have been perfectly fine, which discounts what you suggest as a cause.

 

[chriscallender]

If the OoW was looking at the anchored ship's AIS it could be that the transmitted AIS was faulty. I once followed a yacht past the Roche Dovres on passage from St Peter Port to Lezardrieux . I could see a target following me 1.5 miles behind on my port quarter but not see the vessel. The yacht was 1.5 miles in front on my stbd quarter. I wathed the target sail straight through the lighthouse. That made me realise that the transmitted signal from the yacht was incorrect. All other targets on my plotter seemed correct.
So if the anchored ship was doing the same thing, then Solong may have thought that it was passing with room to spare. Especially if its radar was not working & the OoW was relying on the AIS.

The position of both is spot on on websites like marine traffic etc right up to the point of the collision. That position is derived from an actual AIS receiver which is then forwarding the position reports on to the server. I suspect that in the case of the yacht you saw in the wrong position, its AIS transmitter was being driven by a GPS which was configured with something other than WGS84 datum, or else it just had a very unreliable fix, and to anyone that had happened to look at it on the internet, they would have seen it go straight through the lighthouse too. The fact that the ships aren't offset and don't appear to miss each other on marine traffic makes me think that all the transmitted AIS data was fine and completely valid (for both of them, but especially for the anchored tanker).

Then I also doubt that there was no primary radar available to them. Two radars installations are mandatory for ships over 3000 GT, and it would't have been legal to leave Grangemouth with no radar, relying on AIS. Of course there's a criminal investigation ongoing so it doesn't exclude the possibility that something illegal was done, but my money would be on something less technical, such as eyeball/ear availablity

 

[benjenbav]

Perhaps the Russians were jamming the GPS signal

Not convinced Bob Marley and the Wailers were involved?

 

[ylop]

In certain vehicle collisions involving serious injury a driver who is suspected of causing it is arrested but thats just standard practice and does not always mean he is guilty. Would it not be the same for a ship captain ?

Certainly. Once arrested he gains certain rights (solicitor, translator, consulate informed etc) which potentially make the investigation easier, and prevents arguments about admissibility of evidence if it gets that far but arrest does not imply guilt. Indeed even if he gets charged people would go well to remember that guilt is for a court to decide based on actual evidence rather than supposition.

Even with a Russian Captain, I can't help thinking that cock-up is more likely than conspiracy. Conspiracy would have been more subtle

I think if it was a malevolent act, you usually want the “victim” to know that they were attacked rather than just unlucky. Obviously some states move in mysterious ways but it’s not like ships colliding is unheard of even although it should be easily avoidable.

 

[KevinV]

I think if it was a malevolent act, you usually want the “victim” to know that they were attacked rather than just unlucky.

Not in hybrid warfare - the aggressor uses plausible deniability to prevent counter-attack.

 

[johnalison]

I think if it was a malevolent act, you usually want the “victim” to know that they were attacked rather than just unlucky. Obviously some states move in mysterious ways but it’s not like ships colliding is unheard of even although it should be easily avoidable.

I don't believe that it was a malevolent act but it says something about the world we are not allowed to talk about and some of its occupants that many of us see this as a clear possibility.

 

[seeSimon]

I don't know the area personally, but the incident seems to have occurred quite near the Humber Pilots station. Any VTS shore radar coverage?

Given the amount of traffic there should be plenty of black box VDR info from all sorts of ships, possibly even eye witnesses?

did no one say anything, or did they rely on some sort of last minute hope of a course change response?

I'm not for any conspiracy here. Drunk/asleep/fatigue/ doing paperwork/on the Internet gets my vote..."human factors" as they say. Single handedly operating solong?

Possibly something of each on both ships?

 

[Poignard]

The Russian captain was so busy trying to break underwater cables that he wasn't looking where he was going.

 

[Forum Admin Team]

Thread suspended. Topic no longer welcome.