• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
    • B.J. Porter

      Moderation Team Change   06/16/2017

      After fifteen years of volunteer moderation at SA, I will no longer be part of the moderation team. The decision to step aside is mine, and has been some time in the works but we did not wish to announce it in advance for a number of reasons. It's been fun, but I need my time back for other purposes now. The Underdawg admin account will not be monitored until further notice, as I will be relinquishing control of it along with my administrative privileges. Zapata will continue on as a moderator, and any concerns or issues can be directed to that account or to the Editor until further notice. Anyone interested in helping moderate the forums should reach out to Scot by sending a PM to the Editor account. Please note that I am not leaving the community, I am merely stepping aside from Admin responsibilities and privileges on the site.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TJSoCal

  • Rank
  1. Yeah, that's the article I saw. But an overhaul period that included an alteration like that would typically be at least 9 months, probably more than a year. So there might be a system or two at sea, but I don't think Fitzgerald would have been one.
  2. That's interesting, and would probably also be hella quiet for antisubmarine warfare ops (although I'm sure they still have to run generators but not the main engines), The article I found was from 2015 and said that installations would start late in 2016, so I'm guessing none of them are at sea yet. Plus ships homeported overseas are usually the last to get new stuff like that.
  3. From the track, it looks like he decided to take a penalty turn instead... ;-)
  4. It's possible that Fitzgerald and Crystal were on parallel or near-parallel courses (NE) with Fitzgerald to port of Crystal, and a course change by one or the other or both (which might not show up on the track of Crystal at the scale shown) brought them into contact. As I recall (one of the Burke class vets might correct me) the Navy's normal speed on a transit is around 15kt as that's most economical. If they weren't transiting somewhere specific but just hanging out doing racetracks, probably slower.
  5. If you put a dodger on a racing boat you deserve all the heartache that comes with it.
  6. It does seem likely that the OOD made an error. What the error was and how and why he made it is not known. It also seems likely that the CO will be relieved, even if he did everything any prudent captain would normally do--because he's in command and that's how the Navy does it (and should do it).
  7. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that we don't know who was stand-on and who was give-way -- what do the COLREGS say about a stand-on vessel steering a straight course when risk of collision exists and it becomes apparent that the give-way vessel is not taking sufficient action to avoid collision?
  8. Mmm, I still don't think anyone who wasn't onboard one of the vessels in question (or, by now, has interviewed them for the Navy investigation) can say anything "with confidence" other than that the ships collided. I respect Sr Chief's experience and qualifications, but he still has no more direct knowledge of what happened on Fitzgerald than I do. I'm opposed to conjecture and surmise, especially when it takes the form of "based on my guesses and sketchy, possibly fake news reports by people who have no idea what they're talking about, this is definitely the only possible way things could have been..." For all we know, the bridge and after steering had been taken over by ISIS terrorists who deliberately put the destroyer in front of a container ship, possibly being controlled by Boko Haram terrorists. Unlikely, but no evidence to the contrary, is there? It's going to take a fair amount of time and effort for the Navy to piece together, as best they can, what actually happened and why. Stay tuned...
  9. If you're just using the winch as a fairlead and not as a winch, you don't really have to wrap it the correct direction. Moving the winches sounds like overkill. As was suggested, put the tails down the companionway. If necessary rig up some kind of keeper so they'll stay in the companionway and off the bulkhead
  10. You need to send this off to the Navy, you could save them a lot of time and taxpayer dollars if they can forgo their investigation and just proceed to the punishment phase. Didn't anyone ever tell you that you should never, ever speak in absolutes?
  11. No matter what the technology, there's still going to be potential for human confusion and errors in judgment. And as long as you have that, ships will continue to periodically collide, run aground, etc.. And folks who weren't there will continue not to understand how such a thing could have happened when avoiding it "would be so easy." I don't know if the Navy will release the findings of the investigation publicly (no real reason why they should) but I'm guessing they'll find a number of routine, in retrospect obviously avoidable fuck-ups. Probably the folks who were there (COs and watch officers on both ships) already have a pretty good idea what they'd have done differently if they had the chance, and I'm sure they feel horrible about the 7 dead shipmates.
  12. Typically no pelorus or compass, but lookouts will report relative bearing and target angle (basically the relative bearing from the other guy to you) so a contact can be identified visually by the bridge watch and correlated with a radar track. Assessing bearing drift, CPA and risk of collision is the watch officers' job, and I imagine it's much simplified by automation these days. Back in my day it was grease pencil on a scopehead and paper & pencil maneuvering board plots. And we (mostly) managed not to hit anybody. Mostly...
  13. True, and USS Frank E. Evans should have been able to dodge out of the way of HMAS Melbourne back in the day too. Plus ca change... And yeah, I also did a turn as DCA and definite BZ due to the damage control teams (which, on a Navy ship in an incident like this, is pretty much everybody on the crew). Sounds like staying afloat was not necessarily a given, they did a great job.
  14. I can add this, based on my experience (take it for what you pay for it...): A ship like the Fitzgerald would probably have three lookouts posted (port, starboard and aft) stationed high up on the superstructure with 7x50 binoculars. They'd be junior folks, but would not be assigned the watch alone until they'd completed the appropriate formal qualification for a lookout which includes how to scan, how to interpret running lights, what to report and how to report it. Probably part of a bridge watch team on for four hours, but the lookouts would be rotated into other positions roughly every half hour or so. Bridge watch (OOD, JOOD) would also typically be maintaining visual watch and keeping a radar plot, and CIC would be keeping their own radar plot. Probably also a visual signals team on watch and looking around as well. It's not that unusual for the captain not to be on the bridge, even/especially at night. Might have been warranted given the traffic, but that was his call to make. The ship is homeported in Yokosuka, so probably operates frequently in those waters and the OODs are probably familiar enough that they don't need the CO's or XO's constant supervision. CO's standing orders and night orders would normally take into consideration the expected amount of traffic and instruct the watchstanders and define when the captain should be called appropriately to the conditions. In open ocean transit it might be appropriate to say call if there's a CPA within 5,000 yards, but in shipping lanes there might be a dozen ships always with CPAs within 1,000 yards. As long as everyone stays in their lane it's not a problem. CO's orders need to be practical, and he needs to put a certain amount of trust in his team. Except in wartime, Navy ships very seldom run without the required running lights. It's hard for me to imagine Fitzgerald would be running dark on routine ops in a busy shipping lane. It's also hard for me to imagine that they'd be running any sort of maneuvering drills at that time of night in those conditions Burke-class destroyers have features to reduce their radar cross section, but I don't think they're especially stealthy. Keep in mind that they were designed in the 1980s and they're built from steel and aluminum with lots of radar-reflecting stuff poking out of the superstructure. Newer ships like the Zumwalt are stealthier by nature, but they carry technology to increase their RCS which would almost certainly be in use in conditions like the Fitzgerald was sailing in.