Organizational blunders and leadership failures

Warships are like laboratories for studying organizational structure and leadership. Under the captain's leadership, tons of steel and equipment are transformed into a living, breathing entity. The sailors on board, who have all been trained in the same schools and environments, give the ship its soul. The leadership and the people on board are what make the ship function, and even ships of the same class can be distinguished by the attitude of the sailors or by tiny details created by different leadership styles.

Warships are complex machines that require a high degree of engineering and technical expertise to operate. They are also home to a crew of dozens or even hundreds of people, who must work together seamlessly to carry out the ship's mission. This makes warships ideal laboratories for studying organizational structure and leadership.

The logistical needs of a warship, the technical requirements of its systems, and the missions that it must undertake all place a great deal of stress on the ship's organizational structure. The organizational functions on a warship must work flawlessly, like the wheels of a clock, in order to ensure the ship's success. This requires careful planning, training, and execution.

In addition to the technical challenges, warships also face the human element. The crew of a warship must be able to work together effectively under pressure, often in dangerous and challenging conditions.

The employer, whichever the Navy, cannot leave room for error and creates a checkpoint for each action. Since the employees come from their country's military schools, they represent more or less the same values and culture. Their managers know better than civil organizations what is missing and needs to be completed. Again, unlike civilian organizations, each individual's personal history records perfectly reveal what they did or did not do. More importantly, the activities of the ships, which are procured and maintained by spending a lot of financial resources, are also monitored by the public. Blunders appear in newspapers, unlike private companies, and harm national pride. Therefore, administrators and commanders must show the best of management and leadership methods and art.

However, mistakes do happen. Because people are people everywhere. Here are a few examples:

In 2017, a US Navy destroyer collided with a Japanese fishing vessel, killing two of the fishermen.

In 2016, a French Navy frigate collided with a merchant ship, causing extensive damage to both vessels.

In 2015, a Chinese Navy warship collided with a fishing boat, killing one of the fishermen.

Most likely, the root causes are all the same as the incidents below, regardless of the flag they are waving. 

Norwegian Frigate KNM Helge Ingstad:

Helge Ingstad, which was launched in 2007, started to work in the Norwegian Navy in 2009, was equipped with state-of-the-art navigation systems, and was designed to survive in the wars of the modern age, collided with the tanker Sola TS on November 8, 2018. After the collision, she ran aground and sank in its location on November 13, 2018. The wreckage was removed.  And on March 3, 2019. It was decided that it was not economical [1] to repair the ship and scrap it.

The question of “why the ship that had the best sailors was involved in this accident?” was on people's minds.  

It was publicly discussed that the easy sinking of the ship was a great disadvantage for Navantia, the builder. It was stated in open sources that the cost of the accident to the Norwegian Navy reached 600 million dollars, including the figures for saving the ship. The Norwegian Ministry of Defense also faced another problem when the local fishing company filed a lawsuit for compensation of approximately 100 million dollars due to the losses caused by the fuel spilled into the sea. 

The answer is simple: Human error as the result of overconfidence, lack of training, and ignorance.

Let's dig a little deeper. Helge Ingstad was navigating through the so-called narrow water channel at the time of the accident. The ship's Commander was sleeping in his cabin at the time of the accident and was woken up by the sound of the crash. (Maybe more than overconfidence, just ignorance.) It doesn't matter where the commander was during the incident. The commander is responsible for every event in his ship, regardless of where he/she is. When an accident or incident occurs, procedures are rather simple, “If the person in charge took the necessary precautions to prevent that incident from occurring, regardless of where he is physically,” On the other hand, in the case of this incident, it is mandatory in many naval forces for the commander to be on the bridge, even in waters much wider than the channel where the incident happened. The obligation is not about how well the ship's personnel know their duties. It is most of the time a rule written in blood, perhaps. 

In this case, the officers to whom the Commander entrusted the bridge did not have sufficient experience. But the Commander also had to know that they did not have the experience and sufficient qualifications.

There was no teamwork on the bridge, they did not use the resources they had. They said that they confused the lights of the approaching ship with the shore lights. They should have realized that the approaching tanker and the lights on their radar belonged to the same ship. They did not make good use of their radar and other electronic navigational aids. Organizational deficiencies also brought about deficiencies in situational awareness. The watch officer did not use the radar and Automatic Identification System as required [2]

Their ignorance or indifference should have been detected before. In the Helge Ingstad incident, the problem was not only with the Commander of this ship.

The traffic station controlling the crossings did not do its job properly. TS Solas also thought the frigate saw him. But they were wrong. If the two ships had been able to talk and agree on time, there might have been no conflict. The importance of speaking on time and preventing misunderstandings has once again emerged.

USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. Mcain accidents:

On warships, in addition to civilian ships, one of the control mechanisms for safe navigation is the ships' Combat Information Centers (CIC). CICs also have bridge support duties for the safe navigation of the ship, especially in narrow and trafficked waters. CICs provide support for the safety of navigation without seeing the outside of the ships with the help of electronic navigation devices.

The AEGIS class frigates of the USA, equipped with state-of-the-art equipment such as Helge Ingstad, were involved in the accidents, costing more than a billion dollars each, These ships were operated by personnel who had undergone or were thought to have undergone intensive training programs. There had been accidents, anyway.

The USS Fitzgerald incident occurred on June 17, 2017, and the USS John S. McCain on August 21, 2017, just 2 months after Fitzgerald, and a total of 17 lives were lost.

USS Fitzgerald:

7 soldiers lost their lives on June 17, 2017, in USS Fitzgerald. The findings of the Navy as a result of its investigation may be summarized as follows:

Due to his insecurity, the Watch Supervisor on the bridge of the ship did not communicate adequately with the CIC, which is, in a sense, the electronic center of the ship. Personal feelings and miscommunication were noted as the first flaws.

It was revealed that some radar consoles were not functioning in CIC and no personnel knew how to use them.

Lack of education and ignorance were the prevailing deficiencies.

It is understood that the navigation system on the ship was not working as it should. Excruciatingly, about five weeks ago, navigation lights almost caused a collision with another ship, and no corrective action was taken.

The high tempo of the ship's activity emerged as an excuse for their lack of training and control.

The excuse, “We are always on duty; every single individual is operating in it,” is the most significant fault everybody has. The improper leadership of USS Fitzgerald's commander chain of command has been invoiced up to the level of the Commodore and Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral, who plan to operate without giving the ship a training opportunity.

Training also requires evaluation. 

The personnel of the USS Fitzgerald could not be evaluated.

USS John S. McCain:

On August 21, 2017, 10 sailors lost their lives on the USS John S. McCain, which collided with the Liberian-flagged Alnic MC off the coast of Singapore, causing $100 million in damage to the ship. Initial reports after the accident pointed to exhausted personnel, a lack of onboard communication, and congestion on the sea route.

According to the accident report, while the USS John S. McCain was passing the Singapore Channel, its rudder malfunctioned. The rudder failure occurred while the personnel were in control of the ship, and the ship, which returned to the pier uncontrolled despite the intervention of the personnel, collided with the ship named Alnic MC, which was passing by.

 In the report, the lack of training of the bridge personnel on emergency rules and the lack of adequate communication with the colliding ship were the main reasons. Other items were noted as fatigue, such as the USS Fitzgerald, and the failure of superiors to control the ship's training level. [3] [4]

After both accidents, it was once again revealed that the training and control of a unit's readiness for duty were paramount and not to be left to arbitrary practices.

The US Navy demonstrated that by dismissing the relevant Commanders in the chain of Command. 

For businesses to triumph, methods may change for profitability, but the appliance of procedures and management of people does not.

i. Between 2004 and 2016   the Indian Navy lost a submarine, a frigate, and two corvettes due to accidents.

The sinking of Submarine INS Sindhurakshak on 14 Aug 2003 was the worst, after an explosion caused dead of 18 people trapped in the ship and died. (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ins-betwa-mishap-indian-navy-capsized-warship-mumbai-355937-2016-12-06)

[1] Cost of ship was announced as 1.4 Billion USD, greater than a single ship (The Maritime Executive, 14 May 2019)

[2] Report on the collision on 8 November 2018 between the frigate HNoMS Helge Ingstad and the oil tanker Sola TS outside the Sture Terminal in the Hjeltefjord in Hordaland county, 2019.08

3] Marine Accident Report, National Transportation Safety Board, Collision Between US Navy Destroyer John S Mc Cain and Tanker Alnic MC, 21 August 2017, Mart 2019

[4] Prorepublica, Years of Warnings, then death and Disaster  Robert Faturechi, Megan Rose and T. Christian Miller, Feb 7, 2019, ttps://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/, 18 May 2021