USS Fitzgerald collision with container ship

[Tom P 0]

22 minutes ago, Chum said:

RIP.

From my point of view, we owe a tremendous debt to these guys and their families, and all others who volunteer themselves and give everything for US. 

Fair winds, Semper Fi.

+1000

[nolatom 371]

9 hours ago, Jammer Six said:

If what you say is the truth, and he was overtaking you, your duty was to hold your course and speed if there was a chance of collision.

Learn the COLREGS and stop making us all look bad to the pros.

Fair enough.  Beating to windward ahead of an approaching ship is a recipe for misunderstanding by both vessels.  I've found it useful to call that MV before he gets close (usually towboats pushing barges along the GIWW and Gulf Coast in my case), tell him I'm zig-zagging out of necessity, and advising him that when we get close, I'm going to "zag" back away before I get close to dead ahead of him.  They have always understood, and when they get close and I'm forced by geography to tack back towards them, another call reassuring him of just that, makes him sure rather than unsure of my intentions, which keeps him off the horn.

If you're beating in sounds and the like, "holding course and speed" just aint always possible.  Better to describe what you're doing.

[allene222 68]

Holding course and speed in front of a freighter isn't the rule.  They have right of way and you need to keep clear.

[TMSAIL 60]

40 minutes ago, allene222 said:

Holding course and speed in front of a freighter isn't the rule.  They have right of way and you need to keep clear.

They do?  Could you please show that rule?   Because in open waters I didn't know size determines right of way.   Not recommending anyone play chicken with a freighter, but the rules are pretty clear.  

[nolatom 371]

Ship confined to a narrow channel, or to a TSS, has right-of-way, say Rules 9 and 10.

And a ship or tow showing "restricted in ability to maneuver", "not under command", or "fishing" signal, has right of way over sail--Rule 18

And sailboat overtaking a ship (unlikely) must keep out of the way--Rule 13

Aside from that, it's still sail-over-power, as per Rule 18.   That's not to say that yielding right of way isn't a good idea in open water--it is, just do it early so you don't confuse the watch Mate on that ship.

[allene222 68]

3 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

They do?  Could you please show that rule?   Because in open waters I didn't know size determines right of way.   Not recommending anyone play chicken with a freighter, but the rules are pretty clear.  

18 b ii

[nolatom 371]

18 b ii gives ROW only to "restricted in ability to maneuver" ships over sail vessels.  Your garden-variety ship, in ordinary waters not described by rules 9 and 10, and not engaged in restrictive operations, has no ROW over sail.   Do I want to get anywhere in front of him?  No.  But do I, a sailboat, have ROW?  Yes.

[allene222 68]

You don't think a tanker is restricted by its ability to maneuver?  Try asserting your right of way and see how that turns out.  By the way, what do you think would be restricted by its ability to maneuver if not for the boat pictured?

[nolatom 371]

It's not what I think, it's what the Navrules say.  Read the definition of "restricted" at the beginning of the rules.  It does not include a ship, however large, and able to maneuver normally ( i.e. Not engaged in, say, dredging, cable- laying, and the like).

i would  of course prefer not to insist on using that right  to "stand on" but the rules do give that right to the sailboat.  If I'm on that tanker, and have searoom to maneuver, I'm bound by the rules to yield, and Rule 18 does not say otherwise.

[TMSAIL 60]

57 minutes ago, nolatom said:

It's not what I think, it's what the Navrules say.  Read the definition of "restricted" at the beginning of the rules.  It does not include a ship, however large, and able to maneuver normally ( i.e. Not engaged in, say, dredging, cable- laying, and the like).

i would  of course prefer not to insist on using that right  to "stand on" but the rules do give that right to the sailboat.  If I'm on that tanker, and have searoom to maneuver, I'm bound by the rules to yield, and Rule 18 does not say otherwise.

You are correct.  Restricted waters is a channel or restricted depth not open water.   It's been a few years since I passed my captains exam, but I didn't think they changed that part. 

[allene222 68]

OK, so restricted by its ability to maneuver is a defined term and a freighter in open water does not meet the definition.  On the other hand, if you are the stand on vessel and think you have the right of way (which as you rightly point out nobody has) and continue to hold your course and get run over, you have broken 17 b.  I assert that a pleasure sailboat encountering the freighter in post 109 would be ill advised to fail to take action to avoid a collision as that boat going 25 knots isn't going to do much in 2 miles no matter what the rules say.  Advocating holding a collision course because you are the stand on vessel against a freighter isn't too smart, imho.  My advice to any sailboat in that situation would be to change course decisively and do it quickly so that the freighter knows what you are doing (rule 8).

[Innocent Bystander 890]

About the GR

https://www.shipwrecklog.com/log/

 

 

[allene222 68]

Ship can't even avoid hitting a dock and I am going to hold my course and expect her to avoid me.  My guess is that the dock held its course.  There is no fucking way I am every going to require a freighter to change its course to avoid hitting me. I have done that hold your course and get hit thing and once is enough.

[NaptimeAgain 261]

1 hour ago, Innocent Bystander said:

About the GR

https://www.shipwrecklog.com/log/

 

 

Interesting site.  Looks like commercial maritime accidents are weekly events at least.

[nolatom 371]

Choosing a dead-ahead-of ship small cpa situation is inadvisable, and dumb. I haven't contended otherwise.  But you don't always get to choose.   Knowing who is stand-on and who is give- way at the outset, is crucial.  If that tanker, in open water, comes 10 or 20 degrees to port or starboard early on, to open up the cpa on his ECDIS or ARPA so as to let me cross, or overtake me, he's doing the right thing. If I start acting on my own too early, I run the risk of cancelling out his maneuver--how he has to start over,  What's that sailboat doing who was steering east, but now west?  Is he going to keep doing that, or double back again? 

If you think that large ship, not restricted and not in a narrow channel or a TSS, is always stand-on over sail under the rules, you are of a mindset that could cause you to "borrow" trouble, and inhibit the ship's efforts to keep clear.

[allene222 68]

"Right of way" was the wrong word.  The reality is that freighters take a very long time to change course and if you are the stand on vessel and on a collision course, it is best to do what is said in the rules (Rule 8) and make a decisive and obvious change in course early do that they know what you are doing.  On the other hand, if you see them make a significant and obvious change in course to let you pass, you would be a fool to change your course so as to bring things back on a collision course.  The main thing is that holding your collision course with a freighter and expecting them to alter their course just seems dumb.

Listen, I held my course when all the other boat had to do was hold their course and they would have cleared me by several boat lengths.  They headed up either intentionally as their skipper said, or because they lost control and headed up, the jib luffed, they did not let the main out, and they hit me.  I was dismasted and we were lucky nobody was killed.  That boat was "only" 62 tons and 84 feet long.  I don't think it would have been reasonable for me to do anything other than hold my course then but I sure as hell am not going to hold a collision course with a freighter.  Been there, done that with a much more maneuverable boat than a freighter and I still got hit.

I can't see the troll any more so I may be missing some of the replies.

I am done with this thread.

[allene222 68]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/asia/fitzgerald-collision-investigation.html?_r=0

 

[austin1972 627]

On 7/8/2017 at 6:31 AM, Jammer Six said:

The Great Republic is considered one of the most nimble and maneuverable ships in the world. She has both bow and stern thrusters. She has eight rudders and two variable pitch propellers. She cruises at 12-13 knots and is capable of 17-18 knots.

 

 

On 7/8/2017 at 8:55 AM, Innocent Bystander said:

About the GR

https://www.shipwrecklog.com/log/

 

 

How is the 2nd link about the Great Republic? The one that comes in by my cottage is this one:

 

[Mid 2,909]

Leaked USS Fitzgerald report paints a damning picture of a dysfunctional ship and crew

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/leaked-uss-fitzgerald-report-paints-a-damning-picture-of-a-dysfunctional-ship-and-crew/news-story/15f056f5fad65c58aa0517d9dd97ab9c

[Baldur 58]

Just read an interesting article on this. 

 

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/

[Foreverslow 241]

31 minutes ago, Baldur said:

Just read an interesting article on this. 

 

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/

beat me to it.

Damn that is one intense article.

be sure to use a computer.  The graphics are worth the time all by themselves...

[P_Wop 1,865]

Very good article.  Thanks for posting it.

As I said right when I posted this thread: "Oh, dear, oh, dear.... Who wasn't looking at the damn radar?  Or out of the bloody bridge window, for that matter...."

The telling paragraph for me is: "In years past, commanders traditionally posted lookouts on the port and starboard sides of the bridge. The lookouts had one job: search the sea for hazards. But Navy cutbacks in personnel prompted Benson and other captains to combine the duties into a single job. “We just don’t have enough bodies, qualified bodies, to have a port and starboard lookout,” said a boatswain’s mate first class."

[Foreverslow 241]

1 hour ago, P_Wop said:

Very good article.  Thanks for posting it.

As I said right when I posted this thread: "Oh, dear, oh, dear.... Who wasn't looking at the damn radar?  Or out of the bloody bridge window, for that matter...."

The telling paragraph for me is: "In years past, commanders traditionally posted lookouts on the port and starboard sides of the bridge. The lookouts had one job: search the sea for hazards. But Navy cutbacks in personnel prompted Benson and other captains to combine the duties into a single job. “We just don’t have enough bodies, qualified bodies, to have a port and starboard lookout,” said a boatswain’s mate first class."

 

Read the companion article.  Explains the broken radar, lack of training, and only 1 lookout.

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/

Amazing how a couple of fuckups can take out the largest Navy in the world without even trying

 

 

[NaptimeAgain 261]

Amazing.

[chum 384]

I heard sometime back that a watch stander pushed the “Position Update” button on the radar console over a thousand times in an hour. He had not been adequately trained enough to know to use the “Auto Track” button. 

Go Navy.

[Laker 248]

13 hours ago, chum said:

I heard sometime back that a watch stander pushed the “Position Update” button on the radar console over a thousand times in an hour. He had not been adequately trained enough to know to use the “Auto Track” button. 

Go Navy.

According to the article, the "Auto Track" was broken.

[chum 384]

8 minutes ago, Laker said:

According to the article, the "Auto Track" was broken.

I’m not sure now which ship the piece I heard was referring to. The quote was from the Navy report.

[Grande Mastere Dreade 2,153]

On 8/17/2017 at 9:45 PM, austin1972 said:

 

How is the 2nd link about the Great Republic? The one that comes in by my cottage is this one:

 

looks like the back half fell off

[mookiesurfs 99]

On 2/7/2019 at 5:05 PM, Baldur said:

Just read an interesting article on this. 

 

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/

*Bump*

I just found that article elsewhere and was going to post it. Fascinating read. And I will say, as a Navy veteran, it's not as inaccurate as most reports. The facts seem fairly accurate, but delving into personalities is always problematic.