Over two days in court, the Ingstad watch chief has for the first time given his own, open explanation of what led to one of the most expensive accidents in Norwegian history.
Only a miracle meant that none of the 137 on board KNM Helge Ingstad lost their lives when it collided with the tanker Sola TS in Hjeltefjorden, 8 November 2018.
In court, the 33-year-old defendant explained that he thought the tanker was an object lying close to land.
He established this as a truth in his own head, while he continued to work on the bridge.
Read the TV 2 special: The warship that collided and sank.
ILLUSTRATION: The Accident Investigation Board has created an animated recreation of the course of action, the night of the accident in 2018. Here from the bridge at Helge Ingstad. Photo: Accident Investigation Board
– Must have locked up
Johnny Nordahl Berentzen is one of the country’s many experienced sailors who follow the trial with great interest.
Berentzen has himself been professionally active at sea for 28 years, and for several years has been captain of tankers of approximately the same size as the Sola TS.
For the past nine years, he has taught nautical studies at the University of Vestland, with radio communication as one of the subject areas.
He thinks the whole Ingstad case is very sensational.
– It is very surprising that this happened at all. I think the whole case is strange, and that also applies to the radio communication that is heard, says Berentzen.
EXPERIENCE: University lecturer Johnny Nordahl Berentzen has 28 working years at sea, was captain of large tankers, and now teaches, among other things, radio communication at sea. Photo: Private
– Could have said this
When Sola TS called the frigate watch commander on the radio in the minutes before the collision, he was told to turn to starboard without realizing why or that there was danger ahead.
– Those who call us up do not express any degree of seriousness, but say we must turn to starboard. My understanding of the situation therefore remains the same. No information indicated otherwise, said the defendant.
Berentzen teaches radio communication at sea, and believes the parties should have been much more specific about the radio connection.
– The pilot on Sola TS asked him to turn to starboard, but the tanker could say “we are on a collision course”. This with the fact that the Ingstad watch commander did not want to turn because they wanted to “go too close to the blocks/lights”… it must be a picture of the situation that has locked in, says Berentzen.
INSPECTION: This is what it looks like on the bridge of the frigates in the Nansen class. Here from the court’s inspection of KNM Roald Amundsen at the start of the trial. Photo: Geir Olsen / POOL / NTB
“The books/blocks”
Maps shown in court show that there was approximately one nautical mile between the ships and land.
The 33-year-old has explained that he defied the radio messages to turn to starboard because he feared getting too close to the illuminated object. On the radio, he says he will “get too close to the beacons/blocks”.
When prosecutor Magne Kvamme Sylta asked the 33-year-old what he meant by this, it became difficult to give a clear answer.
Those are words I haven’t used much before or since. I don’t know, said the defendant.
– I would like you to tell me this. You were there, and we wonder what your thoughts were, said the prosecutor.
– I cannot give a clear answer. I don’t understand it myself, what I meant by the blocks, says the defendant, and confirms that he meant the object.
QUESTIONING: State prosecutor Magne Kvamme Sylta pressed the defendant hard on why he did what he did on the bridge, in the minutes before the collision. Photo: Frode Hoff / TV 2
– Can be difficult
The collision occurred at 04.01 at night, and the watch commander had been fully responsible for the craft for just eight minutes before it crashed.
Berentzen can only answer for navigation on civilian vessels, but says his experience is that it can be particularly challenging to navigate ships at night.
– It can be difficult, yes. I myself have sailed out of Stureterminalen, exactly like the Sola TS. The tanker should perhaps have switched off the brightest lights, so that it would have been easier for Ingstad to separate the tanker from shore, says the lecturer.
– In any case, one should have glanced at the radar and established that this was an object that was moving.
OUTLOOK: This is also an illustration from the Accident Investigation Board, about what it might have been like to stand on the bridge to Helge Ingstad before the collision. The light illustrates the tanker, i.e. the object the watch commander thought was on land. Photo: The police
– Why didn’t you ask?
During the explanation, the prosecutor pressed the 33-year-old quite hard on why he did not look at the radar, and why he did not discuss the illuminated object more thoroughly with the rest of the bridge crew.
– That would have been impossible. This is an interaction. I’m not saying that anyone else should have seen it, but they could have seen it and given a correction that we have a radar echo from an AIS in the area.
– Why didn’t you ask if anyone else could see the radar? asked the prosecutor, raising his voice to illustrate.
– It would have been a possibility, the defendant acknowledged.
SKETCH: Drawing outlining the crew on the Helge Ingstad bridge. The starboard lookout – to the right of the bridge – was gone for 18 minutes – shortly before the collision. Photo: The police
Easy to be disturbed
Berentzen says it’s easy to get distracted when you’re captain of the bridge.
– There are so many people, and there can be a lot of noise. In the case of Ingstad, there was a handover of duty, while at the same time there was training for others on the bridge. It does not take much to be disturbed, so that the mental capacity is quickly topped up.
In terms of experience, he also believes that the crew on Sola TS had plenty to do when the ship had to navigate out into the Hjeltefjorden.
– There is hardly a single situation at sea where everyone is innocent. This is how it has always been. If we had done everything we could, there is always someone who will ask “why didn’t you do such and such?”. I understand that the warden is being pushed hard on this in court, but this is very difficult, says the former captain.
– The legislation at sea is much more complex than on land. There is hardly a single rule without exceptions, says Berentzen.
WITNESS BOX: A full five days were set aside for the accused guard commander’s statement in Hordaland district court. Photo: Frode Hoff / TV 2
Forgot plotting
It has also emerged in court that the traffic center at Fedje forgot to plot the radar echo of Helge Ingstad when the frigate entered their sea zone.
If this had been done, the traffic center could have followed the frigate closely via the chart tools, and probably been alerted when the situation became dangerous.
– I am used to the fact that when you register in an area, the traffic center gives you a picture of the traffic situation that may affect you. I am surprised that Sola TS did not receive a message from Fedje VTS that Ingstad came from the north.
TV 2 has previously submitted criticism of the communication in question to the Norwegian Coastal Administration, but they have replied in an e-mail that they do not comment on the ongoing court case.
Marathon trial
The 33-year-old former warden now sits alone on the dock, and has said that he feels made a scapegoat.
The prosecutor’s office has rejected this, and state attorney Benedikte Høgseth has emphasized that the Norwegian Defense Force has been fined NOK 10 million.
The Attorney General has concluded that the entire crew on the Ingstad bridge acted negligently.
The trial lasts for a full two months, until March 10. The penalty for the two offenses is a maximum of five years in prison.
Driver who fell asleep?
In his introductory speech, State Attorney Høgseth compared the warden’s management of Ingstad to a “driver who fell asleep behind the wheel”.
REACTS: Sigmund Simonsen is an expert in maritime law. Photo: Private
Exactly that formulation causes law professor Sigmund Simonsen to react.
He is an expert in maritime law at Høgskulen på Vestlandet, and author of the book “Ship Safety Law”.
– The comparison with a single driver driving on a marked motorway becomes special. Helge Ingstad is a large and complex vessel/system at sea, says Simonsen.
– It seems clear that the bridge team at Helge Ingstad has made several mistakes. In other words, a collective failure or system failure if you will. For that reason, the state was imposed corporate penalties. The question is whether one of the individuals in the bridge team can also be punished. I think the prosecution oversimplifies the issue a bit.
