https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote:

> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

That’s one Naval Officer that’ll never captain another ship…not even a
hooter was sounded.

I don’t think the ‘there’s something wrong with the bloody ship’ defence
will run…

--
Spike

On 20/01/2024 11:47, Spike wrote:
> Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>
> That’s one Naval Officer that’ll never captain another ship…not even a
> hooter was sounded.
>
> I don’t think the ‘there’s something wrong with the bloody ship’ defence
> will run…
>
HMS Bangor? - The clue's in the name shurely?

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

chrisnd @ukrm <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 20/01/2024 11:47, Spike wrote:
>> Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

>> That’s one Naval Officer that’ll never captain another ship…not even a
>> hooter was sounded.

>> I don’t think the ‘there’s something wrong with the bloody ship’ defence will run…

Perhaps it will…

Reports suggest the ship performed an uncommanded action when it went into
reverse.

I thought there were signals (flag, siren, radio) for ‘ship out of
control’.

> HMS Bangor? - The clue's in the name shurely?

:-)

--
Spike

On 20/01/2024 14:37, Spike wrote:
> I thought there were signals (flag, siren, radio) for ‘ship out of
> control’.

There are: the visual signal of crew running around waving their arms,
followed by an audible signal comprising one loud crunch.

--
Pip

CHUMP #1
(CHarge Up MuPpet)

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote:

>https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

heh. Saw this on twitter the other day

I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50 PM UTC, Champ wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it

It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.

--
WUN

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it

>It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
>a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.

I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
searching only offered me information on pork farming.

Can you expand what you mean?
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On 24/01/2024 12:53, Champ wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>
>> It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>> aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
>> a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
>
> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>
> Can you expand what you mean?

I wondered too but assumed I was being whooshed...

OTOH in my morris group (Black Pig Border), 'switching pigs' would be
wife swapping :-)

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>
>>It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>>aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
>>a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
>
> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>
> Can you expand what you mean?

I haven't the faintest, and I'd rather not chance seeing the Google
search results. So I'd appreciate an explainer as well.

It is surprising that two Navy ships could collide like this in a
non-combat situation. Obviously there had to have been a chain of
unfortunate circumstances to allow this to happen. I agree, someone's
career has just been flushed down the head.

On 2024-01-24, Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
> Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>>
>>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>>
>>>It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>>>aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
>>>a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
>>
>> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
>> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>>
>> Can you expand what you mean?
>
> I haven't the faintest, and I'd rather not chance seeing the Google
> search results. So I'd appreciate an explainer as well.
>
> It is surprising that two Navy ships could collide like this in a
> non-combat situation. Obviously there had to have been a chain of
> unfortunate circumstances to allow this to happen. I agree, someone's
> career has just been flushed down the head.

No, they usually get promoted out of harms wy

WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50 PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>>
>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>
> It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
> aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
> a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
>

I suspect that the skipper didn't have this title on his bookshelf...

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FpVyjxxTC8DJVSYd6

On 24/01/2024 17:00, crn wrote:
> On 2024-01-24, Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>> Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>>>
>>>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>>>
>>>> It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>>>> aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
>>>> a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
>>>
>>> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
>>> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>>>
>>> Can you expand what you mean?
>>
>> I haven't the faintest, and I'd rather not chance seeing the Google
>> search results. So I'd appreciate an explainer as well.
>>
>> It is surprising that two Navy ships could collide like this in a
>> non-combat situation. Obviously there had to have been a chain of
>> unfortunate circumstances to allow this to happen. I agree, someone's
>> career has just been flushed down the head.
>
> No, they usually get promoted out of harms wy

In other Navy news, the Admiralty Board has announced that no future
ships are to be named in honour of HRH Prince William in case the
command "Fire at will!" be misunderstood.

;-)

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 12:53:52 PM UTC, Champ wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
> >> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
> >> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>
> >It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
> >aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
> >a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>
> Can you expand what you mean?

A term used to mean that you have made a pig's ear of setting a crucial switch. In military
aviation, you have evaded all defences, navigated perfectly, executed a brilliant
"Maverick-esque" 5.5G turn, lined it all up just so, and some cunt forgot to set
the super-hi-tech missile to "fire". Oops. In this case I suspect something akin to
"Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".

--
WUN

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:39:09 PM UTC, WUN wrote:
> In this case I suspect something akin to
> "Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".

Or - to put it in more local terms - let's say someone has done two laps of
the Mountain Circuit, and absolutely *must* pull into the pit for fuel, and.... doesn't.

--
WUN

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:43:15 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:39:09?PM UTC, WUN wrote:
>> In this case I suspect something akin to
>> "Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".

>Or - to put it in more local terms - let's say someone has done two laps of
>the Mountain Circuit, and absolutely *must* pull into the pit for fuel, and... doesn't.

cnut

<italian accent>
"I miss-a *one* fuel stop!"
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

crn <crn@nospam.netunix.com> wrote:
> On 2024-01-24, Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>> Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>>>
>>>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>>>
>>>> It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one
>>>> apparently remained under considerable
>>>> aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive
>>>> "switch pigs", or
>>>> a control problem. Either way, I suspect at
>>>> least one naval career is over.
>>>
>>> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
>>> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>>>
>>> Can you expand what you mean?
>>
>> I haven't the faintest, and I'd rather not chance seeing the Google
>> search results. So I'd appreciate an explainer as well.
>>
>> It is surprising that two Navy ships could collide like this in a
>> non-combat situation. Obviously there had to have been a chain of
>> unfortunate circumstances to allow this to happen. I agree, someone's
>> career has just been flushed down the head.
>
> No, they usually get promoted out of harms wy
>
>

They really don’t but good to see you maintaining standards.

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:23:08 AM UTC, Champ wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:43:15 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:39:09?PM UTC, WUN wrote:
> >> In this case I suspect something akin to
> >> "Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".
>
> >Or - to put it in more local terms - let's say someone has done two laps of
> >the Mountain Circuit, and absolutely *must* pull into the pit for fuel, and... doesn't.
> cnut
>
> <italian accent>
> "I miss-a *one* fuel stop!"

<Contented sigh>

Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....

--
WUN

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:23:08?AM UTC, Champ wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:43:15 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:39:09?PM UTC, WUN wrote:
>> >> In this case I suspect something akin to
>> >> "Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".
>>
>> >Or - to put it in more local terms - let's say someone has done two laps of
>> >the Mountain Circuit, and absolutely *must* pull into the pit for fuel, and... doesn't.
>> cnut
>>
>> <italian accent>
>> "I miss-a *one* fuel stop!"
>
><Contented sigh>
>
>Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....

Every day's a school day!

--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....

And another WUN-ism that I don't get, and the web won't help me with
:-(
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:53:48 +0000, Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it

Saw the headline/article, but only just watched the video.

FFS! I cannot for the life of me imagine what they were thinking or
trying to do. My only thought is that they may have been trying to go
alongside the moored vessel, but that's really unlikely with all of
the empty quay space in front of it.

Having done the trip to Corfu last year I imagine you have a much
better understanding of what they should have been doing. Even if
they'd been properly lined up they would not have needed that much
speed. You may recall me talking about my 'slow and steady' approach
to mooring - this is why.

>>It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>>aft power for some time *after* the collision.

Yes, it would appear so.

>>Which is either massive "switch pigs", or a control problem.

Difficult to imagine a control issue that could lead to that. Though
it's difficult to imagine someone accidentally going full astern,
which is what it looks like, either.

>>Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.

My resignation would have been on the desk within minutes.

>I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
>searching only offered me information on pork farming.

I've never heard of it either, FWIW.

--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:34:38 +0100, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:

Bad form and all...

>Difficult to imagine a control issue that could lead to that. Though
>it's difficult to imagine someone accidentally going full astern,
>which is what it looks like, either.

I see they're now claiming that 'faulty wiring' meant that it went
full astern instead of full ahead. I've not sailed on a
computer-controlled ship which I assume these would be, so in my
eperience there has always been a mechanical link in place. But in any
case it seems a bit odd that it would just suddenly happen with no
warning at such a crucial point.

So I don't buy the faulty wiring excuse.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

Ace wrote:
> I see they're now claiming that 'faulty wiring' meant that it went
> full astern instead of full ahead. I've not sailed on a
> computer-controlled ship which I assume these would be, so in my
> eperience there has always been a mechanical link in place. But in any
> case it seems a bit odd that it would just suddenly happen with no
> warning at such a crucial point.
>
> So I don't buy the faulty wiring excuse.

Not unlike the old motorsport 'electrical failure' excuse -
yeah, the conrod severed a wire on its way out of the crankcase.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:54:19 +0000, Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel.eaton@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....
>
>And another WUN-ism that I don't get, and the web won't help me with
>:-(

https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum

--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:21:26 +0000, Colin Irvine <look@colinandpat.co.uk> wrote:

> https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum

Well, THAT clears it up, don't it (for us Colonials)? However, THIS
might:

+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_Drum

--
Worst Case