P_Wop

USS Fitzgerald collision with container ship

Recommended Posts

That's going to be expensive. The two starboard side Aegis arrays will be buggered.

What were they playing at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone is going to be unemployed soon.

How the Hell does something like that happen? Were they searching the ship for missing crewmembers instead of keeping watch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks a bit beyond duct tape and bondo....

170616-uss-fitzgerald-collision-ac-804p_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is worse than the minesweeper that went on the reef last year or the guided missile frigate that grounded right off HNL airport a couple years back - but either way it makes the USN look like a bunch of noobs.

Sr. Chief wouldn't have let that crap happen ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 missing crewmen from the Fitzgerald...yikes!

I couldn't even begin to imagine being down below and having all that steel collapsing around me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three spaces flooded solid - two berthing compartments and one engineering space.  Mixed into the crushed zone you see above the main deck is the Captain's cabin and two other staterooms.  Somewhere below the waterline is a big hole - that container ship has a bulbous bow.

Happened around 0230 local time.  CO was medevaced off (was apparently asleep in his cabin at the time), and we are hoping the missing sailors aren't still in the berthing areas.  Ship is pier side in Japan now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BrianM v2 said:

Three spaces flooded solid - two berthing compartments and one engineering space.  Mixed into the crushed zone you see above the main deck is the Captain's cabin and two other staterooms.  Somewhere below the waterline is a big hole - that container ship has a bulbous bow.

Happened around 0230 local time.  CO was medevaced off (was apparently asleep in his cabin at the time), and we are hoping the missing sailors aren't still in the berthing areas.  Ship is pier side in Japan now.

Thank so Brain. Hoping you had some Intel. Horrible accident. Wishing the best for the crew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video from Seventh Fleet

Fairly significant stbd list, down by the bow a few feet.

 

(edit to add that I'm apparently too stupid to figure out how to embed a YouTube video that just plays here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BrianM v2 said:

Three spaces flooded solid - two berthing compartments and one engineering space.  Mixed into the crushed zone you see above the main deck is the Captain's cabin and two other staterooms.  Somewhere below the waterline is a big hole - that container ship has a bulbous bow.

Happened around 0230 local time.  CO was medevaced off (was apparently asleep in his cabin at the time), and we are hoping the missing sailors aren't still in the berthing areas.  Ship is pier side in Japan now.

Pretty impressive damage control work, especially at 0230. Probably won't get to hear much about it, but I'm curious if it was mostly just closing watertight doors or if patching/shoring involved. Berthing spaces.....that seems ominous if it was a 0230 incident.

Best to the crew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

capture30600.thumb.png.920eae3339d8751ed3f43bb972032e29.png

So where on that track was the collision?  In the middle after the ship doubled back?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, valis said:

So where on that track was the collision?  In the middle after the ship doubled back?

The best guess from my group of outsiders ( =people not on the ship in question), given that we don't know exactly when the collision happened: at the west end of that racetrack.  Using the course/speed info on MarineTraffic.com, looks like the container ship came in from the west, headed east at about 17 knots.  She spun a 180 to port (killing time?), came back west doing 10-12 knots.  Where you see the sharp turn to port/south, she slows to 8 then 3 by the end of that little zig.  The long wander back to the north is at just over 1 knot.  Based on her speed through the turn at the east end of the racetrack (8 knots), she may have been turning to port again to complete the loop and head east again.  Then met FITZ someplace in there.

(edited to add a graphic that a friend of mine made.

ACX Crystal Track.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, P_Wop said:

And this is the other vessel.

39287619_401.jpg

Hey, you scratched my anchor!

In all seriousness, I hope those 7 sailors are trapped but alive.

Can someone explain to me how, with all the high tech stuff on that ship, does it get into a collision with a ginormous container ship? Wouldn't you get on the horn and start asking the container guys what their intentions are? I wonder if stealth tech on the Fitz made it so the container ship didn't even see them. Obviously, I know nothing about this stuff. Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

(onboard ACX Crystal)

 

"Anyone hear that? -- better go back and check."

capture30600.thumb.png.920eae3339d8751ed3f43bb972032e29.png

 

 

 

A clear case of hunting during the pre-start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BrianM v2 said:

The best guess from my group of outsiders ( =people not on the ship in question), given that we don't know exactly when the collision happened: at the west end of that racetrack.  Using the course/speed info on MarineTraffic.com, looks like the container ship came in from the west, headed east at about 17 knots.  She spun a 180 to port (killing time?), came back west doing 10-12 knots.  Where you see the sharp turn to port/south, she slows to 8 then 3 by the end of that little zig.  The long wander back to the north is at just over 1 knot.  Based on her speed through the turn at the east end of the racetrack (8 knots), she may have been turning to port again to complete the loop and head east again.  Then met FITZ someplace in there.

(edited to add a graphic that a friend of mine made.

ACX Crystal Track.jpg

 This may be another way to phrase what you are saying: 

My best guess is the collision happened at "A". She then circled back to possibly render assistance. The Fitz might have had to abandon ship. They could not just stop, that takes some time, but when they had scrubbed off enough speed they turned back, and then decided to bump the speed up a bit to get back a little faster, stopping near the Fitz. They then maneuvered a bit to stay close as the Fitz drifted.

 WAG, damn near... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 This may be another way to phrase what you are saying: 

My best guess is the collision happened at "A". She then circled back to possibly render assistance. The Fitz might have had to abandon ship. They could not just stop, that takes some time, but when they had scrubbed off enough speed they turned back, and then decided to bump the speed up a bit to get back a little faster, stopping near the Fitz. They then maneuvered a bit to stay close as the Fitz drifted.

 WAG, damn near... 

I'll go with that scenario.  Headings and speeds seems to be congruent with prudent seamanship after a suspected collision.

But the facts will out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can sorta see missing a visual on the container ship at 0230........but somebody was asleep on the surface radar. Maybe they were running a "silent" training Op? I can remember running all lights out and no radar in the Gulf of Tonkin, but that was for diffferent reasons..........we also once did a nighttime UNREP blacked out and radio silence as well using only signal light morse code to communicate. We found each other by predetermined rendezvous point/time and never turned on a light or used the radio to coordinate. It was a training exercise.  I thought it was pretty sketchy. The skivvey wavers had carpal tunnel syndrome after that night!

I really feel badly for whoever had the bridge at the time. Reports are the Skipper was in the rack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising she's taking in water.  The bulb must have made a bloody great big hole.  I expect the missing are down in that flooded accommodation area.  Damn....

 

photo_9360611_a.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P_Wop said:

I'll go with that scenario.  Headings and speeds seems to be congruent with prudent seamanship after a suspected collision.

But the facts will out.

I would guess that before doing anything the containership had to do their own damage assessment and that could have taken some time. Nobody is normally anywhere near the bow, and you don't just open a water-tight door to what might be a flooded compartment for a look-see....except from an overhead and one well above water level.

10-15 minutes...or thereabouts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USN just confirmed a number of bodies recovered from flooded compartments 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Point Break said:

Maybe they were running a "silent" training Op? I can remember running all lights out and no radar in the Gulf of Tonkin, but that was for diffferent reasons..........we also once did a nighttime UNREP blacked out and radio silence as well using only signal light morse code to communicate. We found each other by predetermined rendezvous point/time and never turned on a light or used the radio to coordinate. It was a training exercise. 

Maybe, except you'd expect the skipper to be on the bridge in that scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Secret Experiment said:

Maybe, except you'd expect the skipper to be on the bridge in that scenario?

Good point, yes.....I would. Even if he didn't have the bridge/con.......he wouldn't be in the rack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic AIS has alarms for vessels within set distances and or on collisions paths.  This collision is hard to comprehend.  Was the watch completely stoned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to encounter a military vessel with their AIS transmitting, so it's entirely possible the freighter didn't have the benefit of the Fitz's AIS signal. Still a monumental fuckup on the part of both vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't referring to the container ship, the destroyer should have had collision avoidance systems running, as would a simple cruising vessel.

It's a fuckup of the military vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4ktsb said:

^^ what PWop said

merchant ships port bow damage - Navy ship starboard side damage, suggests 45ish degree T-bone. If collision was after 180deg turn, damage would be port to port or stb to stb

I reckon Duncan has it right in post #10 - "Anyone hear that? -- better go back and check."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that you can draw much from that. Any turns ahead of the collision shouldn't assume either or both ships weren't in a hard turn at the last minute trying to avoid a collision at the last minute. 

We'll find out.........not enough info yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, random said:

It's a fuckup of the military vessel.

 

it has to be.

What's the bet the Destroyer was running 'dark' -- playing some anti-hijack games or something to see if they'd get detected -- obviously not running AIS, and radar blocking/stealth on.

 

As above - container would take some time to wake off watch, assess state of ship after collision etc before being able to turn back and check things out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it happened at Point A.  The merchant ship may have been overtaking and with a slight turn to port indicated prior to point A.  converged pretty quick.   I'll wait for the report, but if it was a true T-bone (port starboard)   the destroyer would probably be on the bottom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lesson for us sailors on little plastic boats.....I can tell you I had an 0300 meeting with a carrier out between Santa Barbara Island and San Nicholas one night.  I called the OOD just to be sure they weren't  planning on making a big turn and starting flight ops or anything.  I was transmitting AIS and had a radar reflector......OOD didn't see me.  I had to tell him my location before he finally said "Oh, there you are....".  As I was single handing, I found it disheartening to say the least that they weren't really paying much attention and I might have been grabbing a nap.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two Captains soon to be unemployed.

Then they'll realize they can join this forum, and design boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One possibly facing 7 x Manslaughter charges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, random said:

Basic AIS has alarms for vessels within set distances and or on collisions paths.  This collision is hard to comprehend.  Was the watch completely stoned?

Any sailor would know that US Naval vessels do not transmit AIS. Ever.

Have a seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jammer Six said:

US Naval vessels do not transmit AIS.

Oh really?  Gee hey, who would have guessed.  So perhaps they should at least consider installing it, for their own protection because they really fucked up without it.

You have a seat. 

Clearly they were completely in-fucking-competent.  I guessing they were all off their tits on cheap local stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There will certainly be a significant investigation of this incident. AIS transponders are mandated by the Internation Maritime Organization. They transmit a ship's identity, position, course and speed every 6 seconds when underway. AIS equipment was designed specifically for collision avoidance (as well as traffic management near ports) and automatic alarms will usually sound when the equipment detects a potential for collision.

Military vessels are not required to carry AIS. For obvious reasons, military missions would not allow transmissions of this type. Many military vessels do carry AIS receivers, however. If present, such a receiver should have alerted the crew of the Fitzgerald of the threat. More likely, the crew would rely on even more sophisticated equipment such as radar Radar would not identify the vessel, as AIS does, but it would certainly detect the oncoming vessel.

For ships of this size, AIS should be detectable at a range of 20 miles or more if the equipment is operating properly. We know that the ACX was steaming at about 17 kt. We don't know the speed of the Fitzgerald. However, even at her maximum speed of about 30kt, the closing speed would have been 47kt in the worst case (probably much less since the ships collided obliquely and the Fitzgerald was likely not going at max speed). AIS alone (let alone the extensive active radar carried by the Fitzgerald) would have provided at least 25 minutes to adjust course to avoid the collision."

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/assessing-uss-fitzgerald-collision-acx-crystal-eric-meger

Having spent some time in those waters on USN ships and making the approach from the channel into Yokosuka, Japan can be a challenge, incredible amount of traffic, merchant, military and private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The collision happened at around 1:30 a.m. but it was not until 2:25 a.m. that the container ship informed the Japanese coastguard of the accident, said coastguard spokesman Takeshi Aikawa told Reuters."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-idUSKBN19913U

That puts the collision at point A.  Clearly the container ship returned to render aid.  Nothing else made sense anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I wasn't there and it has been a while since I was on the big grey boats.  Here is my 100% made up scenario of what happened:

- an exercise was underway where the ship was chasing a submarine while simultaneously being tracked by two aircraft

- the engineering department just called up and said one of the power generation units just shut itself down

- the OOD was studying for boards and only had 2 hours of sleep in the past 24

- there were 14 ships nearby that were being tracked

- while it was the middle of the night local time it is the middle of the day at the Pentagon and people there were making all kinds of requests

- two additional people on watch were also sleep deprived

- much of the operations crew was very junior and the senior guy just ducked out for 30 minutes to get some coffee and have a smoke

- the deck department was reporting one of the steaming lights had burned out

- the radio (Ch 16) was blaring with inane chatter

- the volume of communication and noise on the bridge and in the ops room was overwhelming

Somewhere in all of this, an 18 year old kid who just qualified as junior radar operator was saying that a big freaking ship was coming right at them.  No one heard him or paid attention.  

I am proud to have called myself a Naval Officer and I have the utmost respect for what they do.  Sympathy to those who have lost loved ones.  

There will be an investigation and there will be a factual report.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jammer Six said:

Any sailor would know that US Naval vessels do not transmit AIS. Ever.

Make that "Hardly ever."

Often the Military Sealift Command Service vessels transmit AIS, but sometimes the regular Navy ships do as well.  One time I tracked the USS John C. Stennis (aircraft carrier) via AIS as she sailed north of San Francisco on her way home to Bremerton after deployment in the mideast.  Sent them email to say hello and "welcome home", and got a very nice reply.

But in the vast majority of cases, yes, Navy ships are AIS silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a retired admiral on TV say the container ship made a sudden change in course and the navy ship could not avoid it.  That is the same thing the guy who hit me said.  Maybe they teach that line in officer training school.  I don't think we will know why this happened for some time but I would bet it isn't because the container ship made a sudden course change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, valis said:

Make that "Hardly ever."

Often the Military Sealift Command Service vessels transmit AIS, but sometimes the regular Navy ships do as well.  One time I tracked the USS John C. Stennis (aircraft carrier) via AIS as she sailed north of San Francisco on her way home to Bremerton after deployment in the mideast.  Sent them email to say hello and "welcome home", and got a very nice reply.

But in the vast majority of cases, yes, Navy ships are AIS silent.

Another interesting question, and one that will be pertinent.  Was USS Fitzgerald carrying standard running lights?  3 white, 1 red, 1 green.

In my (lengthy) experience at sea, in many cases warships don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, allene222 said:

I heard a retired admiral on TV say the container ship made a sudden change in course and the navy ship could not avoid it.  That is the same thing the guy who hit me said.  Maybe they teach that line in officer training school.  I don't think we will know why this happened for some time but I would bet it isn't because the container ship made a sudden course change.

Unless it was intentional on the part of the cargo ship.

Forest for the trees

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's my assessment, based on limited facts.....

* Container ship is proceeding at planned economical speed on a largely ENE course at night with normal watch set.

* Crowded waters, lots of shore lights.

* 1/3 moon, fairly low in sky to the south, i.e. the other direction.

* Grey USN vessel running to SE, with no lights, pretty well invisible to container ship.

* USN vessel is somewhat stealthy on radar too, so target appears small, if any.  Clutter control is probably turned up a bit.

* Boxship spots them visually at last moment, orders hard turn to starboard.

* Collision at about 60° angle, boxship port bow to USN ship starboard bridge structure, with boxship bulb penetrating below waterline.

* Boxship calls all hands, makes preliminary damage assessment, which takes at least 15 minutes to get men out of structure and forward.

* Boxship radios sea traffic control and asks permission to reverse course to assist injured vessel.

* Boxship arrives near USN vessel, slows to a near stop and establishes that the situation is under control.

* Boxship resumes course to port at reduced speed.

 

Did I miss anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, P_Wop said:

Did I miss anything?

Yep. 

If all that happened, why the fack didn't the watch from the Fitzgerald see the fackin 700 foot, 2,858 TEU container ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, J T said:

Yep. 

If all that happened, why the fack didn't the watch from the Fitzgerald see the fackin 700 foot, 2,858 TEU container ship?

Ah, yes, indeed..... Now that's the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P_Wop said:

OK, here's my assessment, based on limited facts.....

* Container ship is proceeding at planned economical speed on a largely ENE course at night with normal watch set.

* Crowded waters, lots of shore lights.

* 1/3 moon, fairly low in sky to the south, i.e. the other direction.

* Grey USN vessel running to SE, with no lights, pretty well invisible to container ship.

* USN vessel is somewhat stealthy on radar too, so target appears small, if any.  Clutter control is probably turned up a bit.

* Boxship spots them visually at last moment, orders hard turn to starboard.

* Collision at about 60° angle, boxship port bow to USN ship starboard bridge structure, with boxship bulb penetrating below waterline.

* Boxship calls all hands, makes preliminary damage assessment, which takes at least 15 minutes to get men out of structure and forward.

* Boxship radios sea traffic control and asks permission to reverse course to assist injured vessel.

* Boxship arrives near USN vessel, slows to a near stop and establishes that the situation is under control.

* Boxship resumes course to port at reduced speed.

 

Did I miss anything?

I am surprised to discover they were running with out running lights in a heavily trafficked shipping lane. It is SOP to conduct such exercises, which include shutting off all EM emissions, radar first and foremost, well away from those. Whoever ordered that is going to be in a lot of hot water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P_Wop said:

OK, here's my assessment, based on limited facts.....

* Container ship is proceeding at planned economical speed on a largely ENE course at night with normal watch set.

* Crowded waters, lots of shore lights.

* 1/3 moon, fairly low in sky to the south, i.e. the other direction.

* Grey USN vessel running to SE, with no lights, pretty well invisible to container ship.

* USN vessel is somewhat stealthy on radar too, so target appears small, if any.  Clutter control is probably turned up a bit.

* Boxship spots them visually at last moment, orders hard turn to starboard.

* Collision at about 60° angle, boxship port bow to USN ship starboard bridge structure, with boxship bulb penetrating below waterline.

* Boxship calls all hands, makes preliminary damage assessment, which takes at least 15 minutes to get men out of structure and forward.

* Boxship radios sea traffic control and asks permission to reverse course to assist injured vessel.

* Boxship arrives near USN vessel, slows to a near stop and establishes that the situation is under control.

* Boxship resumes course to port at reduced speed.

 

Did I miss anything?

Yes, the big box ship had AIS up and running and somehow the Navy OD allowed himself to get run down by the lumbering beast.  Good thing it was not and ISIS gunboat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US navy needs to stay off the green stuff.  The container ship should be a lot easier to see than a some pirates with explosives.  I suspect the bad guys might now think the US Navy are soft targets.  Drug fucked and not keeping watch.

?m=02&d=20120111&t=2&i=557210884&w=780&f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J T said:

Yep. 

If all that happened, why the fack didn't the watch from the Fitzgerald see the fackin 700 foot, 2,858 TEU container ship?

They were heads down looking at something other than the situation surrounding the ship.  The real question was why was the captain in his cabin and where was the XO.  Who was the senior officer on watch and what were the starboard lookouts up to.  The list of those the screwed the pooch will be long and go from the lowest enlisted to the CO and even the fleet commander. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other scenario would be the destroyer at low speed and being overtaken by the container ship.  Stern light on Destroyer easily missed with shore and traffic.   Just finding it hard to believe lookouts would miss a red light on a 700 foot container ship in a crossing situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why didn't the Navy report the accident?  Still in stealth mode?  That had worked well !!! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DtM said:

And why didn't the Navy report the accident?  Still in stealth mode?  That had worked well !!! 

 

Gee probably a little busy saving both the ship and treating the injured.   Also the radio room was destroyed.  Bigger question with none of the above issues why did the container ship wait an hour? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of other things to consider (9 years of driving grey ships, including beachings).

1. We only had lights out once - in the med at 25 kts in the summer - looking for the Russians who where going to find mines in the Red Sea

2. Normal transit speeds are for PIM about 16 kts (if you don't know what PIM means then shut up)

3. We were always in fuel conservation - as when we get to 90% fuel we start looking for an unrep - gas turbines love fuel.  Burkes have 4 LM 2500s: so figure they MIGHT have had 1 engine on one shaft -pitch dialed down.

4. COs sleep...whether in their cabin or in their chair - fuck u all if you think he should have been up.  If in restricted nav waters,then XO is up.  If in steaming execises, then u have a TAO (if you don't know who he is shut up).  TAO runs the ship - not the OOD.  OOD is for safe nav.

5. OOD (and rest of Bridge watch team) reads COs standing orders every month and signs...there are specific words about CPAs, COs inescapable responsibility for ship and crew safety and when to call him.  My orders were to put danger on the quarter, call CO and go max speed.   Was bow on to a 900 ft navy oiler one night as he turned 270 deg to new station vice 90...Took the deck and the conn from the JOOD, order hard rudder, called CO and said "I need you on the bridge now sir", and ordered Engineering to give me Max speed.  CO came out in bare feet, Tshirt and belt unbuckled.  Looks like CO's at sea cabin is one level down.

6. Ships in turns appear to be slower, radar will not tell you it is in a turn too soon.  We used surface search radar, probably as good as your normal Raymarine,  not sure if they had their Fire control radar in surface mode tracking - as it would show better.

7. If exercises were finished, probably junior guy on watch - I had to stand a combat watch after being up 60 hours after being the tactical communicator in ASW exercises (my other job was Communications officer, COMSEC Material Officer, and SAS (nuke weapons) Officer)

8. I was disappointed in Gcaptains writeup, especially since he was at Maritime when one of the original drafters for the USCG taught there (he was my sea-daddy's grandpa).

9. I agree that port starboard looks bad, but given videos of other collisions, I believe this was slow speed.  We studied a lot of accidents in baby SWOS.

10. This was a ballistic missile defense ship (think korea)

11. COs bio shows about 4 years of sea time (someone peer check me) in 18 years...sigh...

12 XO is now running the ship, looks like same year-group as CO but with a LOT more seatime..

13. If you know what a Belknap pole is chime in.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago, I scored a ride on the Fitzgerald during a publicity tour through Chicago.  All the cool toys were neat, but what really impressed me was the maneuverability of this ship. Full speed to dead stop in 2 boat lengths and the turning at speed was also impressive.  I'll be interested to know how this happened as I'm fairly certain that the Fitzgerald could have easily gotten out of the way of a container ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, linaszuk said:

Years ago, I scored a ride on the Fitzgerald during a publicity tour through Chicago.  All the cool toys were neat, but what really impressed me was the maneuverability of this ship. Full speed to dead stop in 2 boat lengths and the turning at speed was also impressive.  I'll be interested to know how this happened as I'm fairly certain that the Fitzgerald could have easily gotten out of the way of a container ship.

+1.  Seems inexcusable for the Fitzgerald to be hit even if the container ship was trying to ram her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:47 PM, Mark K said:

I am surprised to discover they were running with out running lights in a heavily trafficked shipping lane. It is SOP to conduct such exercises, which include shutting off all EM emissions, radar first and foremost, well away from those. Whoever ordered that is going to be in a lot of hot water. 

Who said they were running without lights?  A warship displays only those needed for Colregs - and unfortunately with probably her RCS and lights made her look like a little fishing boat.  Allene222, our CO was very laid back in that all he had to do was say "this is the captain, I have the Conn" all back full or all ahead full, and the ship (bigger than the Fitz) would move.  We could go from 30+ knts to all stop in 600 - 800 ft on a 563 ft ship.  Controllable Reversable Pitch props - sorta like a turbo prop plane landing, Shaft was spinning at max rpm (north of 100 SRPMs) and 26ft of pitch on the prop, to same RPM, but minus 16 ft of pitch on the prop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bruce T. Shark said:

Who said they were running without lights?  A warship displays only those needed for Colregs - and unfortunately with probably her RCS and lights made her look like a little fishing boat.  Allene222, our CO was very laid back in that all he had to do was say "this is the captain, I have the Conn" all back full or all ahead full, and the ship (bigger than the Fitz) would move.  We could go from 30+ knts to all stop in 600 - 800 ft on a 563 ft ship.  Controllable Reversable Pitch props - sorta like a turbo prop plane landing, Shaft was spinning at max rpm (north of 100 SRPMs) and 26ft of pitch on the prop, to same RPM, but minus 16 ft of pitch on the prop

Ours used to say "I have the ship"........we thought it was an interesting expression......nobody challenged him on it that I ever saw. Of course I didn't spend much time on the Bridge. The phrase "Captain is on the Bridge" was enough to get me to move on...........

That was a long time ago..........1974ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bruce T. Shark said:

 We could go from 30+ knts to all stop in 600 - 800 ft on a 563 ft ship.  Controllable Reversable Pitch props - sorta like a turbo prop plane landing, Shaft was spinning at max rpm (north of 100 SRPMs) and 26ft of pitch on the prop, to same RPM, but minus 16 ft of pitch on the prop

If I'm standing on the stern, do I get really wet (as in a wall of water slamming me) when you hit the brakes?  Just curious if you clear the decks for such a maneuver.  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bruce T. Shark said:

Who said they were running without lights?  A warship displays only those needed for Colregs - and unfortunately with probably her RCS and lights made her look like a little fishing boat.  Allene222, our CO was very laid back in that all he had to do was say "this is the captain, I have the Conn" all back full or all ahead full, and the ship (bigger than the Fitz) would move.  We could go from 30+ knts to all stop in 600 - 800 ft on a 563 ft ship.  Controllable Reversable Pitch props - sorta like a turbo prop plane landing, Shaft was spinning at max rpm (north of 100 SRPMs) and 26ft of pitch on the prop, to same RPM, but minus 16 ft of pitch on the prop

It was in the post I quoted for that post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Point Break said:

Ours used to say "I have the ship"........we thought it was an interesting expression......nobody challenged him on it that I ever saw. Of course I didn't spend much time on the Bridge. The phrase "Captain is on the Bridge" was enough to get me to move on...........

That was a long time ago..........1974ish.

It has been reported all those weird turns the cargo ship made were made before the collision. I think we may be damning the Fitz prematurely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mark K said:

It has been reported all those weird turns the cargo ship made were made before the collision. I think we may be damning the Fitz prematurely.  

I hope ISIS doesn't find out that you can ram a destroyer with a cargo ship by making some weird turns. Give me a break...

Like I said, the guy who hit me said I turned suddenly and unexpectedly into the wind and stopped and he made evasive maneuvers but was unable to avoid hitting me.  Luck for me someone took a lot of photos that showed that, while I did what he said, it was after he hit me.  Me thinks the same thing is going on here.  Ships AIS shows a bunch of odd turns and someone says that is the cause.  If anything, it looks like those turns were an attempt to avoid a collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through current articles the time of the collision has been corrected to 16:30UTC by the Japanese Coast Guard and even the US Navy does not longer dispute that timing.

16:30UTC is the first sharp turn on the AIS track. 
Someone or several someones were soundly asleep on the destroyer. Unfortunately others paid for that with their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, allene222 said:

I hope ISIS doesn't find out that you can ram a destroyer with a cargo ship by making some weird turns. Give me a break...

Like I said, the guy who hit me said I turned suddenly and unexpectedly into the wind and stopped and he made evasive maneuvers but was unable to avoid hitting me.  Luck for me someone took a lot of photos that showed that, while I did what he said, it was after he hit me.  Me thinks the same thing is going on here.  Ships AIS shows a bunch of odd turns and someone says that is the cause.  If anything, it looks like those turns were an attempt to avoid a collision.

 

Too many turns to avoid a collision....unless this was an extreme case of hunting. 

 I still don't have a clear mental pic of what the hell happened myself. Don't have a pic of the Fitz's track...don't even know exactly when and where in that drunken spider track the freighter made the hit took place. I thinks I'm going to wait before commenting again on this... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia has an ok article with track and sources. 
The thread in SA has a similar track via marinetraffic with transcribed times and speeds on page 1 post 28.

All that "erratic driving" happened after the collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the video of the track : 

 

 

delta is just 10 seconds from UTC 16:33:22 to 16:33:32 on the upper left corner, and relevant video timing is between 1:06 and 1:07 / 4:29.

Reduced speed by 6.1 knots and course change by 47 degrees in 10 seconds is not even possible by maneuvering the ship without collision forces, indicating it happened right there on the video.

VesselFinder does know how to collect data and produce a video based on it much better than some fake news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Chasm said:

Wikipedia has an ok article with track and sources. 
The thread in SA has a similar track via marinetraffic with transcribed times and speeds on page 1 post 28.

All that "erratic driving" happened after the collision.

You're probably correct in that conclusion.  If so (and there are a lot if "ifs" in what I'm going to say), then assume CRYSTAL is making 16-17 knots on about 072, having altered about 10 degrees to port a few minutes earlier (per the trackline diagram Chasm posted), and FITZGERALD is making what, about 25 knots on (say) about 135 deg (working backward from the crushed steel angles of let's say 60 degrees, which ain't real precise--yet), it may be more of an overtaking situation, with the faster FITZ initially having initially been more than two points abaft CRYSTAL's beam, i e unable to see Crystal's red sidelight initially before gaining on her gradually until Fitz could see Crystal's port nav light, and no longer see Crystal's stern light.

If so, it's an overtaking, and under Rule 13(d) (the Overtaking rule)  it remains one, even as Fitz gains on Crystal ("..any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel.."

If the relative approach angles were greater, and Fitz was within the range of Crystal's sidelight, then it's a crossing situation.

Either (theoretical) way, whether it's a crossing or an overtaking situation, FITZGERALD  would be the give-way vessel. Crystal's approximate 10-degree alteration to port  probably wouldn't make much difference. 

What I feel the worst about are the seven dead souls on FITZGERALD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Chasm said:

Wikipedia has an ok article with track and sources. 
The thread in SA has a similar track via marinetraffic with transcribed times and speeds on page 1 post 28.

All that "erratic driving" happened after the collision.

"....presumptive point of collision." They aren't sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its possible that with the embarkation of rimas and the subsequent suspense of his accidental near landfall that folks were understandably off their game from a vigilance standpoint. I blame social media. It was either that or the carpet pissers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, nolatom said:

You're probably correct in that conclusion.  If so (and there are a lot if "ifs" in what I'm going to say), then assume CRYSTAL is making 16-17 knots on about 072, having altered about 10 degrees to port a few minutes earlier (per the trackline diagram Chasm posted), and FITZGERALD is making what, about 25 knots on (say) about 135 deg (working backward from the crushed steel angles of let's say 60 degrees, which ain't real precise--yet), it may be more of an overtaking situation, with the faster FITZ initially having initially been more than two points abaft CRYSTAL's beam, i e unable to see Crystal's red sidelight initially before gaining on her gradually until Fitz could see Crystal's port nav light, and no longer see Crystal's stern light.

If so, it's an overtaking, and under Rule 13(d) (the Overtaking rule)  it remains one, even as Fitz gains on Crystal ("..any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel.."

If the relative approach angles were greater, and Fitz was within the range of Crystal's sidelight, then it's a crossing situation.

Either (theoretical) way, whether it's a crossing or an overtaking situation, FITZGERALD  would be the give-way vessel. Crystal's approximate 10-degree alteration to port  probably wouldn't make much difference. 

What I feel the worst about are the seven dead souls on FITZGERALD.

The other scenario is Crystal overtaking with the slight turn to port changing a close pass to converging.  It's just as possible the Fitzgerald was cruising along at 10 knots.  I think you would see damage all down the side of the Frigate if she was going 25 knots.  On the other hand the scrapes on the container ship do cover a larger area. Without knowing the course and speed of the Destroyer it's Just speculation.  Agree about the seven sailors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are playing assumptions, unless she was actively engaged in an exercise, show 16 kts.  Gas Turbine ships don't sprint around the ocean Bevis...not even heading to port after 90 days at sea..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:03 PM, Cal20sailor said:

If I'm standing on the stern, do I get really wet (as in a wall of water slamming me) when you hit the brakes?  Just curious if you clear the decks for such a maneuver.  Thanks. 

Actually; no never had it happen, but the stern jumped up and down a lot, and sea suctions for cooling water, firemain and toilet water were full of air for a bit as you backed down thru the cavitation field.  Sorta like how a boat open at the stern doesn't really get a wave flowing into the cockpit in a normal situation.  Now on a carrier - think immovable object hit by ocean wave, there is a reason why when you are on a new carrier doing sea trials (or an overhauled one), that the smoking sponsons (even if covered with cargo netting) are closed and flight deck elevators full up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the NY Times we now know what happened: “All I can say is,” the sailor wrote to The New York Times, “somebody wasn’t paying attention.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, allene222 said:

Per the NY Times we now know what happened: “All I can say is,” the sailor wrote to The New York Times, “somebody wasn’t paying attention.”

That's a good one. They write on what they know and label speculation properly. Mention the strict orders that nobody is to say dick about this...not yet...and that it appears to some experts the containership's actions are consistent with it being on auto pilot at the time. 

 I like how they structured that sentence, a break between "all I can say" and the dead-nuts-on point at the end.  

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reported interview with the container captain, he said they were in a hard starboard trying to avoid the destroyer and had tried to contact after the destroyer turned onto a crossing heading. The interview claimed they tried to avoid collision and contact/signal the destroyer for 10 minutes but nobody on the destroyer responded. 

The ships plots will tell..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooops, sorry, here is the quote and cite.........

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/us-warship-stayed-on-deadly-collision-course-despite-warning-container-ship-captain.html

Quote

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Point Break said:

The last sentence indicates the reporter was just "mailing it in" on that one. 

Quote

 , made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m.

A two hour uie?? He barely read the stuff he wrote, I guess. 

 

 At some point the captain of the freighter will be asked why he resumed his previous course and steamed away from the wreck for 30 minutes before turning around..and he knows it. If he addressed that point the writer wasn't interested in reporting it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites