Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: T.O.M. on June 16, 2017, 08:53:12 PM
-
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1217674/uss-fitzgerald-collision-update/
The Fitzgerald was struck on the side by the freighter. One injured sailor was airlifted off by the Japanese Coast Guard. Seven sailors are "missing." There's some flooding, but the ship is sailing for port under her own power. Praying that the missing are okay, and it makes port fine,
-
Where is freak?
-
Sad reason to introduce myself, though I've been lurking for years. I was on the Fitz for about 4 years in the early 2000s. The 2 berthing spaces flooded hold 75 (mine) and around 40. Given the time of day that this happened, it's amazing more aren't missing. Some watchstanders are likely to hang.(metaphorically) For this to happen takes a long chain of f ups.
-
Looks like she was rammed just forward of midships on the starboard side. No mention of the condition of the freighter -- did the freighter run straight ahead into the side of the Fitz?
Also, so far no mention of which ship might have been at fault. No matter who was technically at fault, though, it's generally not recommended practice to play chicken on the high seas, so there may be a few careers curtailed on both ships.
-
Wasn't me!
Keep hearing about seven sailors are missing, but it also says that there is no official word from the Navy. Probably picked it up from a Facebook post or something. Hopefully that's not the case. =|
Will be curious to know who rammed who.
-
This may be provincialism talking but I'm going to assume our Navy sailors are a hell of a lot better than who was on the other ship and that our guys did everything they could but found themselves rammed anyway.
Like when you're trying to avoid that horrible other driver but she still manages to wipe out your door, quarter panel, side mirror and turn lights.
-
Saw video (USAToday), looks like she took a glancing blow, as opposed to getting T-Boned. It also reported that the CO was MEDEVAC'd. No conformation as to # of missing.
PEFarmer. A belated welcome. Wish you would stuck you head in under better circumstances, but we do hope you throw your $.02 more often.
-
Glad you are ok freak haven't been on much and last I knew you were over there.
-
Glad you are ok freak haven't been on much and last I knew you were over there.
Thanks. I'm on shore command, not stationed on a ship but a building on base.
-
I thought you had been on the USS Dewey
-
This may be provincialism talking but I'm going to assume our Navy sailors are a hell of a lot better than who was on the other ship and that our guys did everything they could but found themselves rammed anyway.
OTOH, a warship might have been running without lights, and thus full responsibility to avoid anything else on the water. Not as likely for a cargo transport.
Either way, hard to imagine how nobody noticed the bigass ship out there on radar or visually unless they were all napping on watch.
-
Saw video (USAToday), looks like she took a glancing blow, as opposed to getting T-Boned. It also reported that the CO was MEDEVAC'd. No conformation as to # of missing.
PEFarmer. A belated welcome. Wish you would stuck you head in under better circumstances, but we do hope you throw your $.02 more often.
Thanks for the welcome. I seem to have quite a bit in common with several of the folks hear and will hopefully participate more.
-
OTOH, a warship might have been running without lights, and thus full responsibility to avoid anything else on the water. Not as likely for a cargo transport.
US Military Vessels don't routinely run without nav lights. Some CG cutters do for a couple hours on interdiction missions, but it's pretty rare for just this reason. We run nav lights in actual conflict zones, I'd be pretty shocked if they turned them off in the Philippine Sea.
I have a couple suspicions, but I'm going to wait until some more info comes out.
I will say, that under the International Collision Regulations, both vessels are at fault. Yes, one was supposed to give way, and the other was supposed to hold course and speed, but the rules specifically say that if a collision is going to occur both vessel have the responsibility to avoid it. That is: even if you have the "right of way" you cant just auger in to another ship. You have to avoid the collision.
-
US Military Vessels don't routinely run without nav lights. Some CG cutters do for a couple hours on interdiction missions, but it's pretty rare for just this reason. We run nav lights in actual conflict zones, I'd be pretty shocked if they turned them off in the Philippine Sea.
I thought I'd seen something about an exercise in one of the articles. Figured they might have been both in an unusual configuration and expecting another ship nearby, but still, between radar, sonar and visual observation, not noticing a frickin' container ship about to knock a hole in your boat is particularly bad seamanship.
I mean, it's a destroyer; look at the amount of crap nailed onto it specifically for the purpose of detecting stuff it might want to destroy.
-
I mean, it's a destroyer; look at the amount of crap nailed onto it specifically for the purpose of detecting stuff it might want to destroy.
Yes. Getting hit by a random container ship does not speak highly of its survivability.
-
I was Army, so literally have near zero knowledge of Naval operations... But don't ships have lidar, radar, sonar or guys with binocs to watch for ships trying to ram or sink said ship? Army wise, there's always guards, fire watch, CQ, or whatnot. Even if they're a speed bump, their job is to pick up the phone and notify someone something bad is happening
-
If they can't avoid colliding with a big, slow, civilian container ship out in the ocean . . . how the bleep are they going to deal with a hostile COMBAT ship of ANY type in a shooting war? :facepalm:
Sounds like an epic fail of leadership, training, and discipline.
-
Underway at night normally you would have a OOD (Officer of the Deck) plus several others on the bridge. In Combat Control you would have several people on watch.
Then again, if running dark and under EMCON (Emissions Control) the boat would be nearly invisible, depending on the moon. It get really dark out on the ocean. A container ship would have maybe 2 people on the bridge and no real lookouts as they would be relying on radar and autopilot. That is where CIC (Combat Information Center) would be listening passively for other radar, etc.
As far as lookouts, once a contact is reported to CIC they tend to ignore other reports of same contact because they are tracking it.
Yea, heads will roll for this one. But it isn't the first time this had happened and it probably won't be the last. The USS Belknap was run over by the USS Kennedy in the 70's and during Viet Nam the USS Frank E. Evans was run over by the HMAS Melbourne and was cut in half. Those, while Navy vs Navy shows how crowded it can sometimes get out there. I can't recall other merchant vs Navy collisions but I know there have been some.
bob
-
I can't recall other merchant vs Navy collisions but I know there have been some.
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=19914
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/08/japan.us.ship/index.html
On 13 November 2002, the USS Oklahoma City collided with the Leif Hoegh liquefied natural gas tanker Norman Lady, east of the Strait of Gibraltar. No one on either vessel was hurt, and there were no leaks of oil from fuel tanks and no threat to the environment, but the submarine sustained damage to her periscope and sail area, and put into La Maddalena, Sardinia, for repairs. Her commanding officer, Commander Richard Voter, was relieved of his command on 30 November. One other officer and two enlisted crew members also were disciplined for dereliction of duty.
On January 8, 2007, USS Newport News was transiting submerged in the Straits of Hormuz when it hit the Japanese tanker Mogamigawa.[10] It had been operating as part of Carrier Strike Group 8 (CSG-8), organized around the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower[11] and dispatched to the Indian Ocean to help support operations in Somalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hartford_and_USS_New_Orleans_collision
USS Montpelier and the Aegis cruiser USS San Jacinto collided off the coast of north-eastern Florida on 13 October 2012 during an exercise while the submarine was submerged at periscope depth. There were no injuries aboard either ship. The initial assessment of damage was that there was a complete de-pressurization of the sonar dome aboard San Jacinto. The investigation revealed that the principal cause of the collision was human error, poor teamwork by Montpelier watch team, and the commanding officer's failure to follow established procedures for submarines operating at periscope depth. Additionally, the investigation revealed contributing factors threaded among the various command and control headquarters that provide training and operational oversight within Fleet Forces Command.
On January 10, 2013 the USS Jacksonville struck an unidentified vessel in the Persian Gulf and lost one of its periscopes.[27] The ship's commanding and executive officers were relieved for cause following the incident.
-
Underway at night normally you would have a OOD (Officer of the Deck) plus several others on the bridge. In Combat Control you would have several people on watch.
Then again, if running dark and under EMCON (Emissions Control) the boat would be nearly invisible, depending on the moon. It get really dark out on the ocean. A container ship would have maybe 2 people on the bridge and no real lookouts as they would be relying on radar and autopilot. That is where CIC (Combat Information Center) would be listening passively for other radar, etc.
As far as lookouts, once a contact is reported to CIC they tend to ignore other reports of same contact because they are tracking it.
Yea, heads will roll for this one. But it isn't the first time this had happened and it probably won't be the last. The USS Belknap was run over by the USS Kennedy in the 70's and during Viet Nam the USS Frank E. Evans was run over by the HMAS Melbourne and was cut in half. Those, while Navy vs Navy shows how crowded it can sometimes get out there. I can't recall other merchant vs Navy collisions but I know there have been some.
bob
Ah. Assumed it was a communication issue. I worked in an artillery unit and frequently worked the radio. Mistakes happen and sometimes you need to explain the situation in calm, clear, professional language.
Example: "Redleg 6, if you continue dropping rounds danger short, I will order full battery counter fire on your position. All division counter batteries, traverse all tubes 90 degrees left, prepare fire mission. Recommend M795 loadout." or "WE ARE ABOUT TO BE RAMMED. TURN THE SHIP OR I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH WITH THE WRECKAGE OF THIS SHIP"
Definitely a training problem. Sack the CO, XO, officer of the day, equivalent NCOs. Recert everyone else.
-
The CO always gets blamed in these cases. Why? What if the CO was asleep?
-
The CO always gets blamed in these cases. Why? What if the CO was asleep?
Still his fault. He is in Command whether awake of asleep.
He won't be fired specifically for the collision but he will be fired "For a loss of confidence in his ability to command".
bob
-
The CO always gets blamed in these cases. Why? What if the CO was asleep?
Commanding officer is and should be responsible for the actions of anyone under his command unless there are HUGE mitigating circumstances. Theory being, he is responsible for making sure all training is accomplished (not pencil whipped), the people are competent and disciplined and that there are no organizational problems. That is his real job, not just telling the ship where to go. The E4 with his hands on the wheel does that. Or the divorced, alcoholic E7 with joint problems that leads said E4.
Reality is, not sure about the Navy but the other branches make it hard as hell to throw out scumbags, lazy types and crazy people. The upper brass, bureaucracy and politicians have been tying the hands of commanders in all services for a long time now.
-
Ah. Assumed it was a communication issue. I worked in an artillery unit and frequently worked the radio. Mistakes happen and sometimes you need to explain the situation in calm, clear, professional language.
Example: "Redleg 6, if you continue dropping rounds danger short, I will order full battery counter fire on your position. All division counter batteries, traverse all tubes 90 degrees left, prepare fire mission. Recommend M795 loadout." or "WE ARE ABOUT TO BE RAMMED. TURN THE SHIP OR I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH WITH THE WRECKAGE OF THIS SHIP"
Or ...
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=174
-
So I'm going to post two pictures. Both are the AIS (Automatic Identification System) shots of the area in question. Both have the past track of the ACX Crystal (The ship they hit) on them, but every other little colored arrow on those pics is a vessel of some kind transiting in or out of Tokyo Bay. Scales are on the lower left. AIS is basically a commercial transponder system for ships. Also remember that there are little fishing and pleasure boats out there not running AIS. And most of them don't speak English as a first language when you get them on the radio.
Given the traffic I'd be shocked if they were running dark or EMCON. The Fitzgerald was transiting a shipping lane south outbound for sea. The main route southwest from Tokyo Bay is between Oshima and Shimoda, so it's likely their course was in there somewhere and generally southwest. If that's the case it was a crossing situation and the Fitzgerald was obligated to give way to the Crystal.
The AIS track looks like the Crystal did a sharp turn to starboard about 0133 local and slowed down. She then continued on roughly her previous course for 10-ish miles, turned around, returned to the site of the sharp turn and loitered there for a while, then proceeded to Tokyo. If I had to guess the first turn was the collision, then she straightened out and slowed down while she did Damage control, and accounted for all her crew, then when it was safe she returned to Fitzgerald see if she could render aid, and after that headed for port. Obviously I'm interpreting from only one data source, but that fits the known data.
US Navy ships don't run AIS, for obvious reasons, but that's what the Crystal's track looks like.
AIS normally integrates with your RADAR and Electronic charts and puts a little triangle on it for you. Folks get too dependent on that and forget that while triangle on the screen means there IS a boat, no triangle doesn't mean there ISN'T. I suspect we'll find that the Fitzgerald was on their RADAR, but they didn't think it was a real target, because AIS wasn't tagging it, and that confusion led to the Crystal not taking action until too late. Fitzgerald, however knew damn good and well she didn't have AIS on, was the give way vessel, and had better sensors then the Crystal. There's no real excuse for her not leaving quite a bit of room.
For perspective we (US Military vessels) normally go for CPA's measured in miles, or at least thousands of yards.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa199%2Fdogmush%2FAIS%2520shot_zpsdyqnuhpb.jpg&hash=47cbf5517c8a8a4c6699e6d5f398a026ebe5a40d) (http://s11.photobucket.com/user/dogmush/media/AIS%20shot_zpsdyqnuhpb.jpg.html)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa199%2Fdogmush%2FAIS%2520Large_zpsdwr3ib4e.jpg&hash=45280d2e5a4866e14aba4e146c632a05c529a0c7) (http://s11.photobucket.com/user/dogmush/media/AIS%20Large_zpsdwr3ib4e.jpg.html)
-
Wiki article says that it was the CO that was injured, and apparently helo'd off. Makes since. In the damage picture, that big smashed in section below the grey octagon where you can aslo see into the ship is Array Room 1, or is it 2 I get those switched sometimes, and also the Captains Stateroom.
-
and also the Captains Stateroom.
So, possible assassination. Anyone know where Hillary is?
-
Just read a report from 7th fleet that a number of the missing were found dead today in the flooded berthing spaces. Not surprising, but horrible nonetheless.
-
Latest reports say all 7 "missing" were found dead in the berthing area.
*expletive deleted*it.
-
Latest reports say all 7 "missing" were found dead in the berthing area.
*expletive deleted*it.
Not like they really had any chance of being found if they'd gone overboard and not turned up yet. Wasn't enough floating debris for anyone to hang on to, and you can only tread water for so long.
At least this way the families have bodies to bury, for whatever closure that brings them.
-
Sorry about the losses of the men. :( I'm glad they found them.
But naturally, I got curious about the turning radii of container ships.
Ain't as simple as I thought.
http://shipsbusiness.com/turning-circle.html
Surprising: It depends on the direction of rotation of the prop. It also depends on the depth of water. Also: In some conditions throwing the rudder over to make a port turn results in an initial starboard turn:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshipsbusiness.com%2Fturning-circle.jpg&hash=1f6dbfd10b49a4123b8c2e5742d555e58f0baa26)
Who'da thunk it?
Not so surprising: It also depends on ballasting, wind, etc.
I guess nowadays they've got steerable props and fore and aft jets to help maneuverability.
I also guess I'll never be a ship's Master. Too complicated.
Terry, 230RN
-
Some ships have azmithing props for and aft, but very few container ships. That's a new and expensive tech. You normally see it on Cruise Ships or tractor tugs. Bow thrusters are pretty common, stern thrusters less so. But bow and stern thrusters have their own engines, and we don't leave them running all the time. They are for low speed maneuvering. So no help in a panic turn like this. The Crystal is a single screw ship. She's got her engine, and her rudder.
Most military ships are multiple shaft, which adds maneuverability because you can reverse the shafts on one side of the vessel while also hitting the rudders. Makes for a lot of stress on the engines, but quick turns. It's possible that the Fitzgerald had variable pitch props. That's becoming pretty common on Navy ships. That makes for a super quick response time, because you don't have to spool the engines down and up, and wait for the shaft brakes to stop the shaft.
You also have to remember that a ship is basically rear steer. If you put the rudders hard to starboard, what actually happens is the stern gets shoved to port. Something to remember in collision avoidance maneuvers.
-
Many freighters being run in other parts of the world are old and aren't going to have things like bow thrusters.
Fishing or boating around large vessels you see real quick just how large a freighter is. That's a lot of kinetic energy to maneuver in the water.
-
Many freighters being run in other parts of the world are old and aren't going to have things like bow thrusters.
Fishing or boating around large vessels you see real quick just how large a freighter is. That's a lot of kinetic energy to maneuver in the water.
Saw one article that mentioned the container ship was 29,000 tons vs. the destroyer at 10,000 tons. Add in the propulsion differences and the fact that a container ship is just one giant sail for any kind of lateral wind, and yeah, the maneuverability difference is rather significant.
-
Many freighters being run in other parts of the world are old and aren't going to have things like bow thrusters.
And like I said upthread how good was the crew of the bigger ship?
I don't want to see this pinned on Americans when there are potentially sub-standard foreigners who can take the hit.
-
Looks like there will be multiple investigations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/world/asia/navy-uss-fitzgerald-japan.html
Admiral Aucoin said he was ordering an investigation by the Navy’s Judge Advocate General, which would be led by a flag officer. The United States Coast Guard would conduct its own inquiry, he said, and the Navy would cooperate with inquiries by the Japanese authorities.
How does the United States Coast Guard have any jurisdiction over a Navy vessel operating in another country's territorial waters?
-
The Coast Guard may have coastal and "congested waters" navigation and legal maritime rules of the road expertise as well as ship handling characteristics, regardless of jurisdiction. Sort of like an expert consultant or private detective.
I reckon.
That's why I was so surprised at how complex "turning a ship" is, as noted above. It ain't like swiveling the Evinrude clamped on the back of your bass boat to make a turn.
Terry, 230RN, Master of couch handling in all waters and weathers.
-
Looks like there will be multiple investigations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/world/asia/navy-uss-fitzgerald-japan.html
How does the United States Coast Guard have any jurisdiction over a Navy vessel operating in another country's territorial waters?
Marine Safety is one of the Coast Guards 11 statutory missions.
-
Marine Safety is one of the Coast Guards 11 statutory missions.
And they have jurisdiction over all american flagged ships, anywhere in the world
-
Just read the list of the deceased. Sad. All pretty young...
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/17/us/missing-sailors-found/index.html
- Gunner's Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia
- Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego
- Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Connecticut
- Gunner's Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas
- Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlosvictor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, California
- Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Maryland
- Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio
-
And like I said upthread how good was the crew of the bigger ship?
I don't want to see this pinned on Americans when there are potentially sub-standard foreigners who can take the hit.
The damage on the Fitz is on her right side.
As a general rule, you give way to the vessel to your right.
And, as a general rule, the more maneuverable vessel gives way.
My gut says we dun *expletive deleted*ed up.
-
The damage on the Fitz is on her right side.
As a general rule, you give way to the vessel to your right.
And, as a general rule, the more maneuverable vessel gives way.
My gut says we dun *expletive deleted*ed up.
But, we got the guns!
-
More proof that heavy and slow beats fast and light.
-
My gut says we dun *expletive deleted*ed up.
It's almost sounding like the best case scenario is "avoidable accident" and not "warship vs lighthouse".
-
The damage on the Fitz is on her right side.
As a general rule, you give way to the vessel to your right.
And, as a general rule, the more maneuverable vessel gives way.
My gut says we dun *expletive deleted*ed up.
I'm drifting that way, too.
If that's the way the various inquiries turn out, I hope we have the balls to stand up and admit it honestly.
But it will probably take a year for all the investigations to finish up.
ETA: I just realized that "drifting" might be considered a pun. Not so. Serious matter.
-
I'm drifting that way, too.
If that's the way the various inquiries turn out, I hope we have the balls to stand up and admit it honestly.
But it will probably take a year for all the investigations to finish up.
ETA: I just realized that "drifting" might be considered a pun. Not so. Serious matter.
No pun taken.
I'm wondering who is going to take hits, and how so. I'm thinking the Officer of the Deck and maybe the CO need to polish their resumes. Career as SWOs are done. The real question is if there may be criminal charges brought, or if the Navy will let this end with resignations of commissions and/or retirements. Negligence + deaths often ends up with manslaughter charges. Mad Dog will weigh in on that decision, which means POTUS will have a say as well...
-
CO was asleep, and new to the ship, which makes it seem a bit unfair to hold him accountable but "the buck stops here" applies. The commanding officer is always ultimately responsible for anything that happens on/to his ship. You really have to wonder what the people on the bridge were doing and thinking. It's dangerous to guess, but I'll take a try and guess that they didn't want to change course to go astern of the freighter so they tried to scoot by in front -- and didn't quite make it. Like all those videos on Youtube of people in cars who thought they could beat a train at a rail crossing ...
-
CO was asleep, and new to the ship, which makes it seem a bit unfair to hold him accountable but "the buck stops here" applies. The commanding officer is always ultimately responsible for anything that happens on/to his ship. You really have to wonder what the people on the bridge were doing and thinking. It's dangerous to guess, but I'll take a try and guess that they didn't want to change course to go astern of the freighter so they tried to scoot by in front -- and didn't quite make it. Like all those videos on Youtube of people in cars who thought they could beat a train at a rail crossing ...
People don't tend to try and cowboy with ships even Naval Officers. Maybe especially Naval Officers.
As silly as it sounds I'd bet quite a bit that they didn't see each other. That's how these investigation overwhelmingly turn out. There were quite a bit of other lights on the horizon, and in the area. There was brightly lit up land behind at least one of them. It's a lot harder than you think to judge distance at night, and it's sometimes pretty difficult to make out what light goes to what ship. That's why they make us practice quite a bit. I routinely, while underway, will point out a set of lights to my watchstander, tell them it's a ship XXX feet long, and ask how far away it is. Then we'll go look at the RADAR. Most are off by a mile or two at night.
As far as electronic aids, it could be as simple as having a RADAR in True Motion mode instead of Relative Motion mode. Or they ran the collision avoidance solution, liked the answer, and the other ship turned or changed speed. Or someone just got locked into another target on the other side of the vessel and forgot to check 360. It's stupid in hindsight, but happens. Actual RADARs are less cut and dry than you'd think. there's a lot of dots, some are boats, some aren't. Some can be tracked automatically, some need to be tracked old fashioned way. I still drill my watch officers on how to do grease pencil plots directly on the screen and get collision avoidance solutions.
Someone (or several someone's) got careless and complacent but I'd be pretty shocked if they made a choice to play chicken. That's what idiot fisherman do, not watch officers on large ships.
-
CO was asleep, and new to the ship, which makes it seem a bit unfair to hold him accountable but "the buck stops here" applies. The commanding officer is always ultimately responsible for anything that happens on/to his ship. You really have to wonder what the people on the bridge were doing and thinking. It's dangerous to guess, but I'll take a try and guess that they didn't want to change course to go astern of the freighter so they tried to scoot by in front -- and didn't quite make it. Like all those videos on Youtube of people in cars who thought they could beat a train at a rail crossing ...
Actually from the NY Times article that you posted, the Captain was the XO on the USS Fitzgerald from 11/2015 to 3/17 when he took over as Captain. Because of that I think it is fair to hold him accountable.
-
Actually from the NY Times article that you posted, the Captain was the XO on the USS Fitzgerald from 11/2015 to 3/17 when he took over as Captain. Because of that I think it is fair to hold him accountable.
The moment you salute and offer your relief and the other person salutes back the responsibility is yours. It may not seem fair in some instances but that Commander has known that this is the way it works since he was an Ensign.
-
Yep, the captain's career is over. Probably a few others as well.
I'd be surprised if there is any UCMJ action. But Chaos6Actual gets the final say...
-
Assuming the position/track charts I'm seeing are accurate, it really, really, really looks like the ACX Crystal intentionally doubled-back twice as if it were deliberately trying to strike the Fitzgerald. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in nautical stuff could give me a reason for these maneuvers.
I'm not saying it couldn't be some other FUBAR sequence of errors or miscommunications, because that kind of thing has certainly happened before with ships, trains, cars, and aircraft... but it looks really damn fishy. =|
For reference, the impact point is the near 90deg. turn in in the upper left.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2FFullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM_zpsybmte0o8.jpg&hash=bda2f9fb64f370e29d4288052fb60af0381e2a6f) (http://s156.photobucket.com/user/AJ_Dual/media/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM_zpsybmte0o8.jpg.html)
-
CO was asleep, and new to the ship, which makes it seem a bit unfair to hold him accountable but "the buck stops here" applies. The commanding officer is always ultimately responsible for anything that happens on/to his ship. You really have to wonder what the people on the bridge were doing and thinking. It's dangerous to guess, but I'll take a try and guess that they didn't want to change course to go astern of the freighter so they tried to scoot by in front -- and didn't quite make it. Like all those videos on Youtube of people in cars who thought they could beat a train at a rail crossing ...
The captain of a warship at sea is the closest thing to actual god-like power you will find on the face of this planet.
With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.
As far as electronic aids, it could be as simple as having a RADAR in True Motion mode instead of Relative Motion mode. Or they ran the collision avoidance solution, liked the answer, and the other ship turned or changed speed. Or someone just got locked into another target on the other side of the vessel and forgot to check 360. It's stupid in hindsight, but happens. Actual RADARs are less cut and dry than you'd think. there's a lot of dots, some are boats, some aren't. Some can be tracked automatically, some need to be tracked old fashioned way. I still drill my watch officers on how to do grease pencil plots directly on the screen and get collision avoidance solutions.
Its been 30+ years ago but I've transited those very same waters standing watch as RADAR operator. It was busy then, I have to expect the traffic is far heavier today. We did it the old fashioned way, grease pencil on the display and if we were in heavy traffic like that we'd have someone else running paper plots on a good old fashioned maneuvering board. All the while manually feeding contact info to the fire control computer operator- ROMEO 57 bearing 235, range 5600 yards... In open water like that CPA closer than 4K yards got peoples attention, a contact inside 2K yards resulted in a change of course or speed.
Someone suggested they may have been running EMCON, if that is the case whoever ordered that needs to be up on charges as well.
-
Assuming the position/track charts I'm seeing are accurate, it really, really, really looks like the ACX Crystal intentionally doubled-back twice as if it were deliberately trying to strike the Fitzgerald. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in nautical stuff could give me a reason for these maneuvers.
I'm not saying it couldn't be some other FUBAR sequence of errors or miscommunications, because that kind of thing has certainly happened before with ships, trains, cars, and aircraft... but it looks really damn fishy. =|
For reference, the impact point is the near 90deg. turn in in the upper left.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2FFullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM_zpsybmte0o8.jpg&hash=bda2f9fb64f370e29d4288052fb60af0381e2a6f) (http://s156.photobucket.com/user/AJ_Dual/media/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM_zpsybmte0o8.jpg.html)
Crazy Ivan?
Does seem a bit odd in to be doing those type of maneuvers in that area ???
-
[tinfoil]
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/something_is_fishy_about_uss_fitzgerald_story_we_are_getting_from_the_media.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/something_is_fishy_about_uss_fitzgerald_story_we_are_getting_from_the_media.html)
-
Assuming the position/track charts I'm seeing are accurate, it really, really, really looks like the ACX Crystal intentionally doubled-back twice as if it were deliberately trying to strike the Fitzgerald. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in nautical stuff could give me a reason for these maneuvers.
I'm not saying it couldn't be some other FUBAR sequence of errors or miscommunications, because that kind of thing has certainly happened before with ships, trains, cars, and aircraft... but it looks really damn fishy. =|
For reference, the impact point is the near 90deg. turn in in the upper left.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2FFullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM_zpsybmte0o8.jpg&hash=bda2f9fb64f370e29d4288052fb60af0381e2a6f) (http://s156.photobucket.com/user/AJ_Dual/media/Fullscreen_6_16_17__8_48_PM_zpsybmte0o8.jpg.html)
I think if you take off the tin-foil, and go back to page one of this thread. Dogmush explains how the 90o turn to starboard at the bottom left of the picture is the impact point. Followed by ACX Crystal slowing down to assess damage before doubling back to render aid. Finally, they depart the area after directed to do so by the JCG.
-
I think if you take off the tin-foil, and go back to page one of this thread. Dogmush explains how the 90o turn to starboard at the bottom left of the picture is the impact point. Followed by ACX Crystal slowing down to assess damage before doubling back to render aid. Finally, they depart the area after directed to do so by the JCG.
Yup, Occam's razor works well here. :)
I forget how far back you can go in track history at the free version of marinetraffic.com, but it would be easy enough to go back and check speeds along the track to confirm.
-
I think if you take off the tin-foil, and go back to page one of this thread. Dogmush explains how the 90o turn to starboard at the bottom left of the picture is the impact point. Followed by ACX Crystal slowing down to assess damage before doubling back to render aid. Finally, they depart the area after directed to do so by the JCG.
Why the hell you wanna go around injecting facts into a perfectly good conspiracy theory?!?!
-
We did it the old fashioned way, grease pencil on the display and if we were in heavy traffic like that we'd have someone else running paper plots on a good old fashioned maneuvering board.
The OS's down in Combat would run paper plots all the time. The... wow I can't think of his title, the officer that was basically in charge of Combat would be having them run plots to find the closest point of approach on pretty much any vessel that looked like it might come close.
Actually from the NY Times article that you posted, the Captain was the XO on the USS Fitzgerald from 11/2015 to 3/17 when he took over as Captain. Because of that I think it is fair to hold him accountable.
That's how it actually works, the XO transitions to the CO's position.
Assuming the position/track charts I'm seeing are accurate, it really, really, really looks like the ACX Crystal intentionally doubled-back twice as if it were deliberately trying to strike the Fitzgerald. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in nautical stuff could give me a reason for these maneuvers.
I'm not saying it couldn't be some other FUBAR sequence of errors or miscommunications, because that kind of thing has certainly happened before with ships, trains, cars, and aircraft... but it looks really damn fishy. =|
To add more tinfoil, I'd read that they took 55 minutes to call in the collision, and then said it had just happened. https://www.rt.com/news/393048-japan-destroyer-collision-late/
-
I think if you take off the tin-foil, and go back to page one of this thread. Dogmush explains how the 90o turn to starboard at the bottom left of the picture is the impact point. Followed by ACX Crystal slowing down to assess damage before doubling back to render aid. Finally, they depart the area after directed to do so by the JCG.
Yeah, I came back to correct that after some more reading. So why are all the arrows ack-basswards?
-
Yeah, I came back to correct that after some more reading. So why are all the arrows ack-basswards?
They aren't. ACX Crystal was running ENE prior to the collision.
To add more tinfoil, I'd read that they took 55 minutes to call in the collision, and then said it had just happened.
I suspect they spent that 55 mins, figuring out what the hell they hit, running damage control, checking the voids in the bulbous bow, explaining it to a suddenly pissed off captain, getting crew accountability, rendering first aid to the inevitable cuts, bruises, and bangs, calling the company, digging out the International SAR manual from where ever they keep it, and making sure their ship wasn't sinking. When all that was done they called the Coast Guard.
-
[tinfoil]
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/something_is_fishy_about_uss_fitzgerald_story_we_are_getting_from_the_media.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/something_is_fishy_about_uss_fitzgerald_story_we_are_getting_from_the_media.html)
Uh, yeah, because turning off the nav lights and transponder is all it takes to hide from a frickin' destroyer. ;/
According to an associate who has a bit more experience than most in this sort of thing:
By the way, I wanted to add that all of the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs are equipped with the latest version of the AN/SPS-67 surface search radar which includes digital automatic target detection (ATD), track while scan (TWS) and moving target indicator (DMTI). It will detect anything it can see, even something as small as a buoy. And given its height on the mast can detect large ships out to, oh, 16 nautical miles or more. And it has a new track alarm, and feeds into the Command & Decision section of the Aegis Combat System and has repeaters on the Bridge and in Combat.
The Bridge and Combat watches on the Fitzgerald would pretty much have to be dead not to know the range, bearing, course, speed, and closest point of approach of the Crystal while it was still over the horizon before the could even see it.
And as a backup to the 67 they're also all equipped with AN/SPS-73(V)12 surface search and navigation radars, shorter range but higher resolution units.
<<SEPARATE POST>>
For the Crystal to have intentionally successfully rammed the Fitzgerald would have required conspiratorial complicity with virtually the entire Fitzgerald watch team - at least a dozen officers and sailors all on watch at the same time.
It is a certainty that the people spewing this nonsense have never served a day at sea on a US Navy guided missile destroyer, and have not a clue as to what they are talking about. (Note: I have commissioned both a Spruance-class destroyer and a Kidd-class guide missile destroyer.)
I am convinced that the sole cause of this collision was gross incompetence and negligence on the part of the Fitzgerald's officers - specifically unrestricted surface line warfare officers from the Captain on down - probably due to too much training time on racial and gender equality and sensitivity issues and not enough training time on how to drive the ******* ship!
-
I suspect they spent that 55 mins, figuring out what the hell they hit, running damage control, checking the voids in the bulbous bow, explaining it to a suddenly pissed off captain, getting crew accountability, rendering first aid to the inevitable cuts, bruises, and bangs, calling the company, digging out the International SAR manual from where ever they keep it, and making sure their ship wasn't sinking. When all that was done they called the Coast Guard.
Marine equivalent of "aviate, navigate, communicate" order of operations in an emergency.
-
Marine equivalent of "aviate, navigate, communicate" order of operations in an emergency.
Yep. Step 1: DON'T SINK. Step 2: Find everyone and help them. Step 3. Make sure you will continue NOT SINKING for a while. Step 4: Report accident.
-
Marine equivalent of "aviate, navigate, communicate" order of operations in an emergency.
Except that I'm pretty sure "tell somebody with the resources to come get us if we are sinking that we've hit something" is pretty high on the priority list; you want that message to go out as early as possible so they can at least prep the resources, know where you are, and know where you're likely to be. For the same reason, dialing the engines back from "haulin' donkey" to "just not drifting" is probably also a good idea.
-
Except that I'm pretty sure "tell somebody with the resources to come get us if we are sinking that we've hit something" is pretty high on the priority list; you want that message to go out as early as possible so they can at least prep the resources, know where you are, and know where you're likely to be. For the same reason, dialing the engines back from "haulin' donkey" to "just not drifting" is probably also a good idea.
And your merchantmarine and Naval experience, especially in command of a ship, is what again? I'll take Dogmush's word for it, given that he just, you know, commands an ocean going vessel... ;/ ;/ ;/
And the other thing they were doing after the collision was trying to not run into anything else. out there. (Look at the track with all the other little triangles in it. That's a major port with lots and lots and lots of traffic along with fishing vessels out running around out there.
-
Except that I'm pretty sure "tell somebody with the resources to come get us if we are sinking that we've hit something" is pretty high on the priority list; you want that message to go out as early as possible so they can at least prep the resources, know where you are, and know where you're likely to be. For the same reason, dialing the engines back from "haulin' donkey" to "just not drifting" is probably also a good idea.
Damn you just enjoy being wrong, don't you?
-
And the other thing they were doing after the collision was trying to not run into anything else. out there. (Look at the track with all the other little triangles in it. That's a major port with lots and lots and lots of traffic along with fishing vessels out running around out there.
Below is traffic in the area as I post this, 2220 (Japan local) 20JUN17. The waypoint marker (purple bubble below Shimoda) is at the coordinates given on AJ Dual's image. I don't know the exact coordinates of the collision, which may be somewhere else within the image.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4218/35259066192_fff441fd02_b.jpg)
-
I've played that game on the ipad.
-
I've played that game on the ipad.
So have I...
-
Below is traffic in the area as I post this, 2220 (Japan local) 20JUN17. The waypoint marker (purple bubble below Shimoda) is at the coordinates given on AJ Dual's image. I don't know the exact coordinates of the collision, which may be somewhere else within the image.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4218/35259066192_fff441fd02_b.jpg)
Been there, done that, literally. The transit in and out of Yokosuka was a pain in the ass because of all the traffic in 1985, my guess is that it has gotten some worse since then.
-
Been there, done that, literally. The transit in and out of Yokosuka was a pain in the ass because of all the traffic in 1985, my guess is that it has gotten some worse since then.
It's pretty bad. I was in and out of Yokohama North Dock several times in 2012-2013. Super crowded, and kinda random traffic schemes.
-
That Marine Traffic web site is interesting. Zoom out a bit and it makes the oceans look rather crowded.
So how do you pick one ship and show a track for it?
-
That Marine Traffic web site is interesting. Zoom out a bit and it makes the oceans look rather crowded.
So how do you pick one ship and show a track for it?
Left click.
-
I tried a left click. All it does is insert a waypoint.
Never mind -- I sort of got it. I have some learning to do.
[Edit] No, I don't have it. Left click pops up the name of the vessel and there's an option to show past track, but when I click on that ... nothing happens.
-
I tried a left click. All it does is insert a waypoint.
Never mind -- I sort of got it. I have some learning to do.
Sometimes you have to reload the page to "reset" stuff and then left-clicking will work again. I don't remember how long back the free version lets you look for tracks. I always used the professional version at work, which has more features.
-
Seems to go back 12 hours and forward 12 hours from "now."
But it won't show me a track.
-
Past track might be a feature you have to sign in for. I have a user account, but I just use the free "basic" plan. Also the Past track feature only goes back 96 hours. (at least in my account) That's why folks screenshotted the Chrystal.
-
I'm pretty sure the pro version went back at least 30 days.
Edit: Actually, from the site: free version = 3 days, pro version =90 days.
-
More information, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4621656/US-sailors-trapped-ALIVE-USS-Fitzgerald-sank.html
-
More information, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4621656/US-sailors-trapped-ALIVE-USS-Fitzgerald-sank.html
Falls under "hazard of the trade".
Kind of a known thing. Save the ship takes priority.
-
Seems to me that the US military is kind of like Rocky in Rocky III
-
It has apparently been confirmed that the container ship was running on autopilot.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/freighter-autopilot-hit-us-destroyer/
Looking at those maritime tracking screen shots it seems like this was a very crowded seaway and that not having someone actually manning the bridge was rather dumb. But ... it was 64 miles off the coast, which is a lot farther out than I've ever gone in any watercraft other than a tour ship when I was in high school.
It still doesn't explain how a modern U.S. military ship, with very advanced threat and collision detection equipment, somehow didn't see the other ship coming.
-
It has apparently been confirmed that the container ship was running on autopilot.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/freighter-autopilot-hit-us-destroyer/
Looking at those maritime tracking screen shots it seems like this was a very crowded seaway and that not having someone actually manning the bridge was rather dumb. But ... it was 64 miles off the coast, which is a lot farther out than I've ever gone in any watercraft other than a tour ship when I was in high school.
It still doesn't explain how a modern U.S. military ship, with very advanced threat and collision detection equipment, somehow didn't see the other ship coming.
Yeah, that's not how autopilot's are used. Of course it was on autopilot. I'm on autopilot from like 1/2 a mile out of port. Who want's to stand with their hands on a wheel for 8 hours at a time. There is still a watch officer and lookouts required by law to be on the bridge.
I've seen several news stories talking about "the freighter was on autopilot" like that meant it couldn't turn. That's disingenuous at best.
If the freighter was actually running an unmanned bridge underway, that's a VERY different thing, illegal, and very negligent. It's one of the few things that could suck a lot of the fault away from the Fitzgerald.
That said, I've run into some idiots manning bridges, people that couldn't speak english manning bridges, aholes that didn't know the nav rules manning bridges, idiots sleeping on the bridge, and one guy getting a blowjob so epic he didn't notice us until the warning shot manning a bridge. I've never found an actually unmanned bridge.
-
^^^So how sophisticated are modern ship autopilots? Can you tell it where to go and it automatically plots and holds a course, or does it just cruise in a straight line until told otherwise?
-
Yeah, that's not how autopilot's are used. Of course it was on autopilot. I'm on autopilot from like 1/2 a mile out of port. Who want's to stand with their hands on a wheel for 8 hours at a time. There is still a watch officer and lookouts required by law to be on the bridge.
I've seen several news stories talking about "the freighter was on autopilot" like that meant it couldn't turn. That's disingenuous at best.
If the freighter was actually running an unmanned bridge underway, that's a VERY different thing, illegal, and very negligent. It's one of the few things that could suck a lot of the fault away from the Fitzgerald.
That said, I've run into some idiots manning bridges, people that couldn't speak english manning bridges, aholes that didn't know the nav rules manning bridges, idiots sleeping on the bridge, and one guy getting a blowjob so epic he didn't notice us until the warning shot manning a bridge. I've never found an actually unmanned bridge.
Whio gave the warning shot, you or him? :P
-
If the freighter was actually running an unmanned bridge underway, that's a VERY different thing, illegal, and very negligent. It's one of the few things that could suck a lot of the fault away from the Fitzgerald.
One of the main theories I'm hearing bandied about is that either the bridge was unmanned, or else it was manned by an unqualified person not trained as watch and/or not qualified (thus not knowing how) to nudge or disengage autopilot and tweak their course. Or possibly not knowing that if that blip is stationary, you need to do something. Or possibly thinking the blip will do something so you don't have to*.
I could see something like that (unqualified or no watch stander) being a higher possibility well out to sea, but even on a lax third world crewed cargo vessel, you would think the captain would have enough self-preservation instinct not to put Gilligan on the bridge by himself in a crowded traffic lane.
All that said, I'm pretty sure all of us want to hear more about the blowjob incident. =D
*Don't worry, they'll get out of our way. I learned that on the Saratoga.
- Captain Ron
-
^^^So how sophisticated are modern ship autopilots? Can you tell it where to go and it automatically plots and holds a course, or does it just cruise in a straight line until told otherwise?
They generally have three modes. (obviously there are different brands and such with more or less features, but generally). Heading Control Mode will hold the heading you set. Wind, waves, current, don't matter. it gust keeps the compass at what you set. Course Control Mode will adjust the heading to make the course over ground you set. So if you want 090 and there's a 30 knot crosswind, it'll hold the heading at 085 (or whatever) so you travel 090 over the ground. Track Control mode will follow the track you have programmed into the electronic chart system. Generally you give the computer a plus or minus amount (called a "cross track error") that it can be from the actual line. Which a mariner chooses depends on conditions, traffic, and the officer of the watch's judgement. I generally run in Track Control once I clear any traffic schemes, or Traffic Controlled areas. My standard open water Cross track is 100m, but my auto pilot holds +/- 10 m even in heavy seas, and +/- 1-4 m in calm seas.
It is also mandated that there is a single control to turnoff autopilot ("single user action" in the lingo) So while I have several touch screens and a trackball to dial in every feature I want (or don't) (I can control rate of turn, max rudder the boat can use, cross track, +/- limits of all the parameters in all the modes, measure in 1/10 of a degree or whole degrees and so on) there is one switch, that if I push that the autopilot shuts of, and you're back in manual control instantly.
It is also required that a qualified Watch Officer be on the bridge at all times.
Whio gave the warning shot, you or him?
We did. Looked like it really ruined the mood. It was a while back; these days I'd have the whole thing on camera and thermals (and would youtube that mother) but back then we had less toys.
-
Thread Veer:
No *expletive deleted*it, there we were.....
circa early 2002 moving ammo, weapons, and vehicles to a remote port in Central America, supporting our allies down there. About 200 mile east of Cancun, headed south-ish. As you can imagine in that timeframe we were a little twitchy, and we had munitions on board. At the time we were enforcing a 150m exclusion zone around all our vessels.
Radar contact, on the port beam, steady bearing decreasing range. *expletive deleted*it.
At about 3 miles out it's becomes obvious that it's a sweet yacht in the 80' range. One of the ones with a nice fly bridge up top.
At 2.5 miles or so, we start hailing on VHF to arrange the crossing. No answer. We progress to sounding stern on the radio and identifying ourselves as a military vessel. No answer. Sound General quarters, load the guns. Call on radio again. Nothing.
The collision avoidance plots show we'd have to damn near turn around, or stop dead to pass at a good distance. (The particular course and speeds of the two vessels meant we couldn't really get away. we didn't have the reserve speed to clear him) Skipper is like "F that, we're Stand On here". Hit the fog horn and call again. Mention this time that we are an armed military vessel. Nothing. No movement, or sign of life on the yacht.
He cleared .75nm (4000yds), and we go weapons green (one in the chamber, ready to rock). Call several more times, mention that they need to turn away, or they will be fired upon. Nada.
At about 300-250M Skipper says "Put a burst across their bow". 10 rounds from Ma Deuce reach out and splash about 75m in front of the incoming vessel. Pretty much instantly a dude sits up in the fly bridge and looks at us with HUGE eyes. Then he starts hitting his lap and pushing something away. Shortly thereafter a very tanned young lady that was not constrained by thoughts of bikini tops sits up, looks at us on the gun deck and, no *expletive deleted*it, wipes her mouth and waves. Dude meanwhile has killed his autopilot, firewalled his engines and turns 90 degrees away from us. Hold that course and what looks like every bit of speed his boat will give him till he clears the horizon and we loose him on RADAR.
Good times. I was on the helm so I didn't get to shoot at them, but had a nice view of the friendly young lady.
I'd bet that RKL has some good periscope video stories. I've heard subs can be sneaky about that kind of thing.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And really, yacht dude, and probably girl, got at least as good of a bar story out of that as you did. :laugh:
-
and one guy getting a blowjob so epic he didn't notice us until the warning shot manning a bridge.
Ummm ... phraseology ...
-
I'd bet that RKL has some good periscope video stories. I've heard subs can be sneaky about that kind of thing
Not too much from underway. A few good shots of young ladies au naturale on the deck of sailboats going in/out of San Diego.
Some of the better shots from the 'scope were while we were in port. San Diego was the best for it, we would tie up close to the head of the pier and get and absolutely AWSOME view of the parking areas. The amount of hanky-panky taking place in the parking lot was astounding and early night vision tech was pretty cool back in the early '80s .
-
Couldn't help it:
Bon Voyeur !
I tried, I really tried, not to do that.
But I'm weak... weak as water.
-
Bon Voyeur !
Or Bun Voyeur.
-
One of the main theories I'm hearing bandied about is that either the bridge was unmanned, or else it was manned by an unqualified person not trained as watch and/or not qualified (thus not knowing how) to nudge or disengage autopilot and tweak their course. Or possibly not knowing that if that blip is stationary, you need to do something. Or possibly thinking the blip will do something so you don't have to*.
Yes, let's have more of this.
-
Yes, let's have more of this.
More of what?
-
Or Bun Voyeur.
Damn. Topped again. :D
A doff of my hat to Fly320s.
-
More of what?
Putting the blame in a more-them less-us direction.
-
Putting the blame in a more-them less-us direction.
Blame goes where blame goes. Sometimes all blame lies squarely on one party's shoulders, often (probably more often) there's enough blame to spread around. Yes, there are maritime rules of the road, for the intention of avoiding collisions, but the most fundamental rule is "Don't hit the other ship." Running a large ship in a (comparatively) crowded sea lane with either no watch on the bridge or a bridge watch that wasn't qualified to operate the ship doesn't make a positive contribution to the prime directive.
-
Putting the blame in a more-them less-us direction.
Sorry, just reading the post makes it hard for me to get your intent. Are you agreeing that it is more likely the cargo vessel's fault than the Navy vessel's fault, or saying I shouldn't be looking to blame the cargo vessel? Not calling you out, I just am unsure. :)
-
I want as much blame on them, the operators of the cargo ship, as possible.
Thankfully no one on the bigger ship was hurt or there'd be no end to the complaining from their side.
-
I want as much blame on them, the operators of the cargo ship, as possible.
Okay, gotchya. :)
-
I want as much blame on them, the operators of the cargo ship, as possible.
Going to be difficult; Crystal had right of way, and Fitzgerald was vastly faster and more nimble, with more detection capability.
Think of it like cruising through a treeless part of Kansas in your Ferrari at 25mph, and being T-boned by a freight train going 15mph, then trying to blame the train for not stopping or turning in time.
Basically, Fitzgerald was not only burdened, but also had the opportunity to avoid the collision after Crystal no longer did.
-
Going to be difficult; Crystal had right of way, and Fitzgerald was vastly faster and more nimble, with more detection capability.
Think of it like cruising through a treeless part of Kansas in your Ferrari at 25mph, and being T-boned by a freight train going 15mph, then trying to blame the train for not stopping or turning in time.
Basically, Fitzgerald was not only burdened, but also had the opportunity to avoid the collision after Crystal no longer did.
From my armchair, I would wager that even if 90% of the accident was the Crystal's fault, the Navy will still get >50% of the blame. The media seems to be focusing 90% on the Navy.
In the end, all we can do is wait for the results of the USCG and Navy investigations.
-
In the end, all we can do is wait for the results of the USCG and Navy investigations.
And the Japanese Coast Guard -- which ultimately has jurisdiction, since the incident was in Japanese territorial waters (I think).
-
Going to be difficult; Crystal had right of way, and Fitzgerald was vastly faster and more nimble, with more detection capability.
Think of it like cruising through a treeless part of Kansas in your Ferrari at 25mph, and being T-boned by a freight train going 15mph, then trying to blame the train for not stopping or turning in time.
Basically, Fitzgerald was not only burdened, but also had the opportunity to avoid the collision after Crystal no longer did.
Yep, and make that a super duper equipped combat seek-and-destroy James Bond Ferrari (or Aston Martin :lol:).
Epic fail.
Now I wonder what a fleet of hostile Russian attack subs would do if the Fitzgerald is representative of the US Navy's readiness...
-
Yep, I'm going to have to agree with KD and Blakenzy.
Water going Rules of the Road, plus the Crystal pretty much traveling in a straight line (Cargo ships very much operate on the "Shortest Distance" principle, as fuel and time = $$$$.) through in that Fitzgerald is much more nimble and is supposed to see everything out there, and it's hard to fault the cargo ship.
Which is also why I :facepalm: when the tinfoil brigade uses the track previously posted to "show" that the Crystal circled about trying to intentionally ram the Fitzgerald, that would be like Kim Jung-Un trying to play tag with Usain Bolt.
-
http://news.trust.org/item/20170626101937-6xsul
So much for the freighter having been on autopilot and nobody knew how to turn the ship. The skipper of the freighter says the destroyer turned in front of his ship, they signaled with a flashing light (which was ignored), and they tried to make a right turn to avoid the collision.
IF that can be verified, it sounds more like my original theory that the destroyer misjudged, and thought they could pass in front of the freighter.
-
Well, we'll see if that stands up.
However aren't there proximity alarms on most vessels? Certainly military ships would have such.
One thing that I was thinking about is the artistic technique of foreshortening that makes something look closer (in 2D) than it actually would be, and the reverse of that that would make something small and near look large and far.
If you've ever been to Disneyland, on main street the upper story windows are actually really small they're just presented in a way that makes the buildings look like full size multi-story buildings.
So what if some combination of ambient light, direct and reflected off the ocean surface, and the placement of the cargo ship's running lights relative to the angle the crew of the warship was seeing them, and the void of ambient light where the bigger ship was blocking it gave the illusion that the bigger ship was farther away, like twice as far as the crew of the Fitz thought?
That would explain why they though they could make it. Also why that warning light didn't have any effect because it too was part of this illusion that the Fitz's crew was seeing.
-
http://news.trust.org/item/20170626101937-6xsul
So much for the freighter having been on autopilot and nobody knew how to turn the ship. The skipper of the freighter says the destroyer turned in front of his ship, they signaled with a flashing light (which was ignored), and they tried to make a right turn to avoid the collision.
IF that can be verified, it sounds more like my original theory that the destroyer misjudged, and thought they could pass in front of the freighter.
I thought they originally said that it was on autopilot with no one on the bridge? ???
-
Well, we'll see if that stands up.
However aren't there proximity alarms on most vessels? Certainly military ships would have such.
One thing that I was thinking about is the artistic technique of foreshortening that makes something look closer (in 2D) than it actually would be, and the reverse of that that would make something small and near look large and far.
If you've ever been to Disneyland, on main street the upper story windows are actually really small they're just presented in a way that makes the buildings look like full size multi-story buildings.
So what if some combination of ambient light, direct and reflected off the ocean surface, and the placement of the cargo ship's running lights relative to the angle the crew of the warship was seeing them, and the void of ambient light where the bigger ship was blocking it gave the illusion that the bigger ship was farther away, like twice as far as the crew of the Fitz thought?
That would explain why they though they could make it. Also why that warning light didn't have any effect because it too was part of this illusion that the Fitz's crew was seeing.
Radar. Not just any radar, but a phased array radar. Possibly even one that was designed for littoral warfare so it would have been really good at picking up crappy contacts close to shore.
-
The phased array radar is primarily for air search.
-
Well, we'll see if that stands up.
However aren't there proximity alarms on most vessels? Certainly military ships would have such.
One thing that I was thinking about is the artistic technique of foreshortening that makes something look closer (in 2D) than it actually would be, and the reverse of that that would make something small and near look large and far.
If you've ever been to Disneyland, on main street the upper story windows are actually really small they're just presented in a way that makes the buildings look like full size multi-story buildings.
So what if some combination of ambient light, direct and reflected off the ocean surface, and the placement of the cargo ship's running lights relative to the angle the crew of the warship was seeing them, and the void of ambient light where the bigger ship was blocking it gave the illusion that the bigger ship was farther away, like twice as far as the crew of the Fitz thought?
That would explain why they though they could make it. Also why that warning light didn't have any effect because it too was part of this illusion that the Fitz's crew was seeing.
Marine navigation radar will calculate closest point of approach for you, and tell you how far away something is.
-
The phased array radar is primarily for air search.
Destroyers also tend to have pretty good ways of tracking stuff on the surface. Because, you know, sometimes that stuff needs to be destroyed too. Remember, if there's any doubt and for whatever reason neither radar is giving a useful answer, and all the binoculars are fogged, just wake up the sonar guy and have him check it out.
Fitzgerald, unless they were in the middle of some massive system reboot, had all the information, speed and maneuverability necessary to never let Crystal get within several miles of it.
Some other comments from my expert source:
Like the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs, and Ticonderoga-class CGs and Spruance-class DDs, the Kidd-class DDGs, of which Chandler was one, have twin reversible variable-pitch screws driven by four GE LM-2500 marine gas turbines. Up to 15 knots the turbines run at constant speed and you vary the ships speed by adjusting the pitch on the screws. Above 15 knots you start increase turbine speed. (All of these ships have a top speed of around 33 knots and can accelerate from dead in the water to 25 knots in the length of the ship and come to a dead stop from 25 knots in the same distance - by reversing pitch on the screws.)
In any case, I suspect the problem wasn't that they didn't see it. More likely a) the Officer of the Deck (OOD) - I don't know how to put this - was inadequately trained, screwed up, an idiot, I dunno, and simply failed to take appropriate action, and, b) failed to call the Captain to the Bridge when things started to get dicey and he got in over his head. At night the Captain always leaves (or is supposed to leave) his "Night Orders" on the Bridge for the OOD. And they always include a note that says "Call me" if another contact is going to pass within XXX miles." (Usually five to ten, depending on his confidence in his OODs.)
Without knowing the specifics it's impossible to say at this point how they got into that situation. All I can say is what I would have done had I been the OOD on Fitzgerald. First off, as I mentioned previously, I would have had a close watch on every contact - including the Crystal - that was within visual range (roughly 8 to 10 nautical miles, or hull-down on the horizon). I would have known their course, speed, and CPA (Closest Point of Approach). Had any contact had a CPA of less than 3 miles, I probably would have taken action at that time to open that up to, say, 5 miles - long before they got that close. If traffic was so heavy that maneuvering was difficult, once another ship got to within 5 miles, I would have called the Captain to the Bridge and recommended a maneuver to get us out of the thick of things - speed up, slow down, turn, turn around, whatever was necessary. If we got to within 2 miles I would have considered the situation to be "in extremis" and sounded 5 short on the ships whistle (danger signal) to wake 'em up, turned the ship in some direction of open water, gone to flank speed (25+ knots), and left the problem in my wake.
-
Some other comments from my expert source:
And they always include a note that says "Call me" if another contact is going to pass within XXX miles." (Usually five to ten, depending on his confidence in his OODs.)
Uhm, are you sure you quoted that right? If so, the CO should have never left the bridge. I've spent lots and lots of time in the shipping lanes off CA, and while crowded, they are not nearly as crowded as where this incident occurred. In the lanes I'm familiar with, there is no way to avoid "under 5 or 10". The opposing lanes themselves are only separated by a 1nm buffer.
Edit: Or actually, it might be 2nm. I've been retired too long and can't remember for sure. Either way, under 5.
Edit again. Ha - I just looked it up and both were right. It was 2nm and they narrowed the traffic separation to 1nm just as I was separating, hence my confusion. :)
-
Uhm, are you sure you quoted that right? If so, the CO should have never left the bridge. I've spent lots and lots of time in the shipping lanes off CA, and while crowded, they are not nearly as crowded as where this incident occurred. In the lanes I'm familiar with, there is no way to avoid "under 5 or 10". The opposing lanes themselves are only separated by a 1nm buffer.
Exact copy/paste. He did mention he's been on the bridge crew of a ship (didn't specify which one) out of Yokosuka more than once, and never had an issue that far out, but that would have been in the 1970s or 1980s. I suspect there's also a backup plan for these things (i.e. a specific OOD trusted to handle tighter conditions) so the CO doesn't have to stay awake past the point where fatigue makes him a potential liability.
I guess the other question is whether a DDG would be actively trying to get away from at least the busiest shipping lanes, if for no other reason than to improve the signal-to-noise ratio on all those fancy ways of seeing stuff.
-
Exact copy/paste. He did mention he's been on the bridge crew of a ship (didn't specify which one) out of Yokosuka more than once, and never had an issue that far out, but that would have been in the 1970s or 1980s. I suspect there's also a backup plan for these things (i.e. a specific OOD trusted to handle tighter conditions) so the CO doesn't have to stay awake past the point where fatigue makes him a potential liability.
I guess the other question is whether a DDG would be actively trying to get away from at least the busiest shipping lanes, if for no other reason than to improve the signal-to-noise ratio on all those fancy ways of seeing stuff.
The more that comes out the more it sounds like the bridge crew on the Fitz seriously screwed the pooch.
On subs we were totally passive for signal collection when submerged. Operating in waters within 40-50 miles of a major port made detection of potential threat emitters a bit of work. The ESM system on my last boat was pretty high tech for the time (late '80s) and if set up right would prioritize contacts by threat level and signal strength. I'd typically have 100+ detected RADARs in the system but most of them were very weak and just run of the mill commercial nav RADARs. My operators and I would make our report About potential threat contacts and their signal strength and include "also hold a large number of low signal strength non-threat commercial navigation RADARs" Had one particularly obnoxious OOD (he didn't much like me) decide he wanted me to make a full report on ALL CONTACTS, DAMNIT!. At the time were operating not to far out from Norfolk, my system was reporting 150+ signals. I even tried to reason with him. ALL CONTACTS DAMNIT!!.
CONN, ESM AYE! I assigned all 150 intercepts with a contact #, keyed the mic and started reporting. Got up to about 40 reports before he sent the messenger back to the shack to shut me down.
Apparently the control room party thought it was hilarious.
-
Destroyers also tend to have pretty good ways of tracking stuff on the surface. Because, you know, sometimes that stuff needs to be destroyed too.
True. It's just not the phased array radar. :P
-
True. It's just not the phased array radar. :P
Pretty sure even if it had trouble with low level contacts, at some point part of Crystal was at a fine angle for it...right before squashing part of it.
-
There are... certain limitations with it, and settings, that would keep it from being seen on purpose.
-
A lot depends on what drills or actual scenarios the ship might be dealing with. Emcon conditions, modified watches, who knows. That far out was probably not still in a restricted manuevering doctrine since while busy they were not in a channel. Most likely is that the bridge team screwed up. But we yet do not know if they had radar and disregarded it, how well their plot was maintained, etc. I am sure the inquiry will find out.
Semi not related, I need to find the quote, but I think it was Nimitz or Halsey who disagreed with the then prevalant practice of wrecking a skippers career because he wrecked his ship. In their view hazarding his vessel was exactly what a destroyer captain was supposed to do in the face of the enemy and they needed to retain and channel the rash energy of those that ran their ship aground and such. Now in today's zero defect Navy that will not be happening. And young department heads and XOs will learn further to hide their mistakes since no mistakes gets you promoted.
When Erictank and I got rear-ended by the Leyte Gulf, some of those ambiguous conditions such as are we using radar were happening. We were in an emisions control condition. Our aft lookouts were pulled because my jet shop sidekicks were running a TF-30 on the stand. The ship was doing engineering drills. The Leyte was pulling plane guard. Nobody bothered to tell them we were done flight ops. Cue a crash stop from the engineering drills and it was suddenly hello cruiser, meet aircraft carrier.
-
Semi not related, I need to find the quote, but I think it was Nimitz or Halsey who disagreed with the then prevalant practice of wrecking a skippers career because he wrecked his ship. In their view hazarding his vessel was exactly what a destroyer captain was supposed to do in the face of the enemy and they needed to retain and channel the rash energy of those that ran their ship aground and such. Now in today's zero defect Navy that will not be happening. And young department heads and XOs will learn further to hide their mistakes since no mistakes gets you promoted.
My opinion but there is a big difference between being bold and taking calculated risks under fire and being boneheaded in peacetime. The first should be valued the second should be flogged.
-
FWIW, I've transited that exact area, and my night orders there are to hold a 2nm CPA on all ships, and call me if you can't find the course that will do that. While crowded, once you clear the harbor approaches you can hold distance pretty well.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2017/08/20/navys-report-fitzgerald-collision-evidence-corruption/
I came across this today off a twitter link. I figured I better put it hear instead of the thread on the second collision.
The things that jumped out at me were the comments about the actual officer of the deck at the time not being named in the report on the incident along with comments about damage control being directed from the bridge. I think it was implied that hatches were closed that prevented some sailors from getting out of flooded areas, but maybe I read it wrong. I need to read through it again later.
There was also a comment about John McCain from the USS Forrestal which I had never heard before. The author suspects the officer of the deck is being protected.
-
I think it was implied that hatches were closed that prevented some sailors from getting out of flooded areas, but maybe I read it wrong.
That was known and reported immediately after the incident.
-
From what I had heard they got as many people as they could out of berthing until the last minute when they had to close the hatches to keep the whole ship from flooding.
-
The Navy released their report on this and the USS John McCain collision yesterday. It's unclass so I'll link to the PDF below. It's some detailed reading, and sobering in places.
The TL:DR version is that both ship's crews weren't trained properly.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf
-
Slight thread Necro:
Both CO's and some junior officers on the Fitzgerald are being charged criminally. Charges include negligent homicide.
From what I gather this isn't a show trial by some overreaching DA. The Navy thinks it'll be able to convict on homicide charges.
Of note, and not explicitly mentioned was that the XO and Ops officer of the McCain are in the logbook as recommending a different course of action and were overruled by the CO. The McCain's junior officers aren't being charged so that might have saved them.
https://news.usni.org/2018/01/16/former-fitzgerald-mccain-cos-face-negligent-homicide-dereliction-duty-charges-fatal-collisions
-
I wonder if they get hit with Reports of Survey for the damage as well. There's no limit on what Officers can be made to pay....
-
Slight thread Necro:
Both CO's and some junior officers on the Fitzgerald are being charged criminally. Charges include negligent homicide.
From what I gather this isn't a show trial by some overreaching DA. The Navy thinks it'll be able to convict on homicide charges.
Of note, and not explicitly mentioned was that the XO and Ops officer of the McCain are in the logbook as recommending a different course of action and were overruled by the CO. The McCain's junior officers aren't being charged so that might have saved them.
https://news.usni.org/2018/01/16/former-fitzgerald-mccain-cos-face-negligent-homicide-dereliction-duty-charges-fatal-collisions
Getting something wrote down in the deck log can definitely be a butt saver. Worked for me twice.
-
Getting something wrote down in the deck log can definitely be a butt saver. Worked for me twice.
Written records can be a butt saver in business as well as in the military, as I found out VERY early in my working career.
-
I carried my CYA tactics to civvie life.
I keep a MAD* file as well.
*Mutually Assured Destruction.
-
+1 on the MAD files.
Back to the topic (if I may be so bold): In addition to the ships' commands, two senior admirals higher up in the food chain are also taking early retirements as part of the fallout.