Hacker News Reader

Comment by MordodeMaru | Hacker News Reader

Funny thing is that Spanish company Navantia was the first to be accused of this (design errors, inexplicable sinking...) and in this article I still see some indirect finger pointing and yet no proof of that. There is some weird thing going on here.

View on HN

The initial info is that the ship sank due to design flaws, like water getting through watertight seals. The collision is in no way attributed to the builder but to the ship's crew.

>> Norwegian authorities found that confusion on the Ingstad’s bridge was the immediate cause of the collision, but that the ship sank because of progressive flooding. After the collision, water quickly moved through several watertight compartments, apparently via the ship’s propeller shafts, which pass through the bulkheads between the compartments through theoretically watertight openings (known as stuffing tubes or stuffing boxes) that should prevent progressive flooding.

>> Based on crew interviews, authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly, jeopardising the watertightness of the ship. The investigation report warned that the faults that sunk the Ingstad could also be in other Navantia ships, raising questions about a possible problem with the design.

If the prop shaft or the hull is bent due to the collision, the stuffing boxes would not seal?

Then again, with a glancing blow to the side of the ship, this should not happen?

Sure, there are plenty of reasons a good design might still fail. But while further investigation might be necessary, the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision. It doesn't look like they're trying to pass the blame. The ship may have been still able to stay afloat after the collision assuming the seals worked as expected.

Isn't "while further investigation might be necessary" incompatible with "the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision." or is it just me?

Think of them as statements of probabilities. "while further investigation might be necessary to be 100% certain, the authorities determined that there his a high probability that the design is to blame for the sinking not the collision."

How certain should you be that there is a serious design flaw in a product before you feel it's warranted to warn others who own that product that there might be a problem.

Maybe but we can't really tell from the article if that's the final report on the investigation and if the builder agrees, hence the might in "further investigation might be necessary". It just says:

> authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly

The why and the how could make the difference between bad design, bad implementation, or bad luck.

That's actually my concern: while it is impossible to determine that from the article, the burden is already in someone's shoulders already.

Keep in mind that news articles are not supposed to replace an investigation report and are only to give more of an outline of the subject. It's just for us laymen and puts very little burden on the involved parties. Certainly less than the official investigation report.

Well the article points out the “water sealed” prop shaft not actually being that even when designed/sold as such. Still would have had the collision but most likely the ship would not have sunk in the case that the water would not have spread throughout the ship.

It's always easier to blame others than accept own's responsibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com