Bruno

Tanker hits Destoyer, how is this possible?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, nolatom said:

Here from an industry publication, "possible scenarios".  I make no comment, but don't let that stop you:

http://maritime-executive.com/editorials/a-possible-scenario-for-the-uss-fitzgerald-collision

Based on his bio the author is certainly knowledgeable and experienced and his surmises seem at least credible (except, to me, the part about putting a "night steaming box" in the middle of shipping lanes), but unless he's seen information that hasn't been released he's completely pulling this stuff out of his ass.

Found this official statement from the Navy Chief of Information, released on 7/21 (the same day that CNN released it's report citing "two unnamed Navy officials" as sources):

“We are in the early stages of the investigation process to develop a comprehensive picture of what caused the collision and do not have any definitive information to release at this time. It is premature to speculate on causation or any other issues. Once we have a detailed understanding of the facts and circumstances, we will share those findings with the Fitzgerald families, our Congressional oversight committees and the general public.”

So that's what we currently know...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can clearly see the SPS-67 and SPS 73 antennas on the Fitz's mainmast after the collision...So that is in fact her surface search radar suite:

85dd49ce8b8d4d3a83d243886365d450_18.jpg

 

Quote

Based on his bio the author is certainly knowledgeable and experienced and his surmises seem at least credible (except, to me, the part about putting a "night steaming box" in the middle of shipping lanes), but unless he's seen information that hasn't been released he's completely pulling this stuff out of his ass.

Not really that uncommon. Take a look at a map, then take a look at the engagement geometry for an SM 3 BLK I. As you say, don't know for sure, but his idea is plausible :

082416-North-Korea-missile.jpg

 

blockiia-footprint5.png?w=600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sidmon said:

This gent has the best set of pics aboard an Arleigh Burke DDG (Jason Dunham) you can find...

 

http://wobiektywieshipspottera.blogspot.com/2015/07/z-cyklu-okrety-wojenne-cz-10-uss-jason.html

 

 

IMG_1849.JPG

 

Caption: Big warship, big red button, Windows 2000.

or

Caption: The USS Windows 2000.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the people they were retaining were apparently not in critically needed billets ashore anyway. I agree, it will result in losses but I'm not sure it will hurt all that much, at least in the short term. Maybe for the long term a reallocation of those billets will change the Table of Organization for shore establishments. 

What's really needed is to halt the madness of continued overseas commitments in the face of progressive budget cuts forcing our armed services to keep trying to do more and more with less and less. Buying 5th Generation combat aircraft like the F-35 isn't helping either, but that's another shit storm for PA. 

Share this post


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

But the people they were retaining were apparently not in critically needed billets ashore anyway. I agree, it will result in losses but I'm not sure it will hurt all that much, at least in the short term. Maybe for the long term a reallocation of those billets will change the Table of Organization for shore establishments. 

What's really needed is to halt the madness of continued overseas commitments in the face of progressive budget cuts forcing our armed services to keep trying to do more and more with less and less. Buying 5th Generation combat aircraft like the F-35 isn't helping either, but that's another shit storm for PA. 

The military gets plenty of money, they are just bad at spending it.  We were spending a billion a week during the early years of OIF/OEF.  The Marines spending a large part of their meager budget on the V-22 Osprey just like they did earlier on the AV-8 Harrier doesn't help either.  The Marines are unnecessary anyway, there hasn't been a significant amphibious landing since the Korean War.  Sure tradition is nice but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

The military gets plenty of money, they are just bad at spending it.  We were spending a billion a week during the early years of OIF/OEF.  The Marines spending a large part of their meager budget on the V-22 Osprey just like they did earlier on the AV-8 Harrier doesn't help either.  The Marines are unnecessary anyway, there hasn't been a significant amphibious landing since the Korean War.  Sure tradition is nice but...

We need the balls to reorganize.   Leave Congress with lump some procurement for each agency, but not managing weapons programs.   Limiting ourselves to the spending of the next three largest military spenders would make any arms race kind of silly, and likely cut spending of both countries more effectively then any treaty.   The leaders drool at the thought of a country powerful enough to justify a bunch of new weapons but weak enough not to wipe out butt yet again.   If they miscalculate we just run away like Somalia and Beirut, or alternately occupy for generations like the Bush wars.    North Korea is too tempting to ignore.

Soaked raises a great point.   All four branches play with aircraft.  The Army competes with the Navy for the most boats.    The Marines are infantry with good physical fitness.   The Air Force couldn't run from their office chairs to their cars to go home at night.   

 

Perhaps biggest of all, living in the leach field of a large military complex, is the huge army of ex military people who retired once and now earn big money working for military contractors.   I know one ex enlisted with a high school education earning (I've seen the court documents) 90,000 a year working for the corporate military.   That's twice the mean income in my county.    He's not guarding Camp Halliburton in Afghanistan, he has a 40 hour per week (no that is not a typo, they do exist still for select salary workers) desk job that occasionally requires him to travel to an office in another state.   He has good benefits.   He strikes me as fairly average in all respects, in the real world he'd be an assistant manager at a JC Penny's slated for closure, or a service rep stuck with weekend calls, off clock travel time and still working a side gig.   The tens of thousands of civilians like him in central Ohio may not count as military, but they are still US Defense spending.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lark said:

We need the balls to reorganize.   Leave Congress with lump some procurement for each agency, but not managing weapons programs.   Limiting ourselves to the spending of the next three largest military spenders would make any arms race kind of silly, and likely cut spending of both countries more effectively then any treaty.   The leaders drool at the thought of a country powerful enough to justify a bunch of new weapons but weak enough not to wipe out butt yet again.   If they miscalculate we just run away like Somalia and Beirut, or alternately occupy for generations like the Bush wars.    North Korea is too tempting to ignore.

Soaked raises a great point.   All four branches play with aircraft.  The Army competes with the Navy for the most boats.    The Marines are infantry with good physical fitness.   The Air Force couldn't run from their office chairs to their cars to go home at night.   

 

Perhaps biggest of all, living in the leach field of a large military complex, is the huge army of ex military people who retired once and now earn big money working for military contractors.   I know one ex enlisted with a high school education earning (I've seen the court documents) 90,000 a year working for the corporate military.   That's twice the mean income in my county.    He's not guarding Camp Halliburton in Afghanistan, he has a 40 hour per week (no that is not a typo, they do exist still for select salary workers) desk job that occasionally requires him to travel to an office in another state.   He has good benefits.   He strikes me as fairly average in all respects, in the real world he'd be an assistant manager at a JC Penny's slated for closure, or a service rep stuck with weekend calls, off clock travel time and still working a side gig.   The tens of thousands of civilians like him in central Ohio may not count as military, but they are still US Defense spending.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes to all of that.  I could tell many stories about military folks leaving active duty on Friday and coming back Monday as a civilian, to the same desk, for much higher pay.  Or incredible tales of fraud, waste, and abuse.  But now were are venturing to PA territory and I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree we'll leave it but I want to make one point: if your problem is that the job the newly minted civilian is taking isn't necessary or could be done more cost effectively by someone else, I agree. But, if your complaint is the former serviceman gets the job that you or someone who didn't put in the time in uniform could have had, then I have no sympathy. Sorry, but the uniform goes to the head of the line in my book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they would have better off with a cook in the crows nest with a gram of coke, binoculars and a walkie talkie than what they apparently were doing as far as collision avoidance in a busy piece of ocean

 

Here, take this shit up to highest point of vessel where you wont get cooked, stay awake and let us know if you see something you can read the name of or is flashing lights at us. We are very interested in objects getting closer to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, kinardly said:

I agree we'll leave it but I want to make one point: if your problem is that the job the newly minted civilian is taking isn't necessary or could be done more cost effectively by someone else, I agree. But, if your complaint is the former serviceman gets the job that you or someone who didn't put in the time in uniform could have had, then I have no sympathy. Sorry, but the uniform goes to the head of the line in my book. 

I served in the Army for 8 years total. I am not crying sour grapes.  I got into civil service as a result of my Army service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 11:31 AM, Wess said:

Sorry, I was not clear.  I get that close in targets can be lost on radar in various ways.  I thought there was protocol for tracking those closer in targets that radar could/would lose involving gun cameras, lookouts, and AIS, so just trying to understand how a target could be completely lost... not just lost to radar. They had to have known it was there at some earlier stage.

The same way a driver plows a pedestrian - looking at a screen, not the windshield.  It could have been as easy as logging a instrument target and sending a man out onto the deck with a pair of binocs.  That kind of watch standing protocol becomes even more important when you are moving fast and YOU are not participating in the AIS show'n'tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 3:47 PM, soak_ed said:

I served in the Army for 8 years total. I am not crying sour grapes.  I got into civil service as a result of my Army service.

Then we cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this Supplemental Prelim Report seems to only describe damage control efforts and doesn't cover the circumstances leading up to the collision.  For understandable reasons I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last sailor pulled to safety from the flooded berthing had been in the bathroom at the time of impact and was knocked to the floor by the flood of water.

“Lockers were floating past him and he scrambled across them towards the main berthing area,” the report said. “At one point he was pinned between the lockers and the ceiling of Berthing 2, but was able to reach for a pipe in the ceiling to pull himself free.”

He made his way toward the port side watertight scuttle, which was “the only light he could see,” and was swimming toward it when he was pulled from the water, “red-faced and with bloodshot eyes,” according to the report.

“He reported that when taking his final breath before being saved, he was already submerged and breathed in water,” the report states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Navy Times

One sailor was able to escape Berthing 2 via the starboard side, right next to where the Crystal had struck.

“When he jumped out of his rack a few seconds later, the water nearly reached his top bunk, already chest high and rising,” the report states.

The sailor moved against the incoming flood of water and lounge furniture.

Soon, he was underwater, but managed to find a small air pocket.

“After a few breaths … he eventually took one final breath and swam,” the report states. “He lost consciousness at this time and does not remember how he escaped Berthing 2, but he ultimately emerged from the flooding into Berthing 1, where he could stand to his feet and breathe.”

The sailor climbed to the main deck and collapsed.

Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Rigsby, 19; Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25; Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T. Truong Huynh, 25; Gunner’s Mate 1st Class Noe Hernandez, 26; Fire Controlman 1st Class Victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23; Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24; and Chief Fire Controlman Gary L. Rehm Jr., 37, did not escape Berthing 2.

Their racks were located closest to the starboard access trunk “and directly in the path of the onrushing water,” according to the report.

 

Three sailors were reported trapped in sonar control as the spaces above them flooded.

They radioed for help but rescue teams could not reach them because the passageway was completely blocked, according to the report.

A team was eventually able to reach sonar control via an escape hatch and those sailors were rescued about 45 minutes after the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respect.    No matter what mistakes were made by those in duty, those off duty have no cause for shame.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a bond between those who go to sea. Always has been and always will be. RIP those who don't make it back. Those who make it back will always remember....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BrickTopHarry said:

Unfortunately this Supplemental Prelim Report seems to only describe damage control efforts and doesn't cover the circumstances leading up to the collision.  For understandable reasons I suppose.

Well it does say the Fitz was on its way to Subic Bay in the Philippines and doing 20 knots to 230 thus quite close to bow to bow. So she was going to the opposite direction and not back to home port as suggested in many places. Somehow the collision happened with only about 30 deg difference in the courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from page 11 of the USN report

39. The CO was in his cabin at the time of the collision. The CRYSTAL’s bow directly struck his cabin, located above the waterline. The impact severely damaged his cabin, trapping him inside. The CO called the bridge requesting assistance. 40. Five Sailors used a sledgehammer, kettlebell, and their bodies to break through the door into the CO’s cabin, remove the hinges, and then pry the door open enough to squeeze through. Even after the door was open, there was a large amount of debris and furniture against the door, preventing anyone from entering or exiting easily. 41. A junior officer and two chief petty officers removed debris from in front of the door and crawled into the cabin. The skin of the ship and outer bulkhead were gone and the night sky could be seen through the hanging wires and ripped steel. The rescue team tied themselves together with a belt in order to create a makeshift harness as they retrieved the CO, who was hanging from the side of the ship. 42. The team took the CO to the bridge, where a medical team assessed his condition. As he was being monitored by personnel on the bridge, his condition worsened. A team of stretcher bearers moved the CO from the bridge to the at-sea cabin at 0319, and shortly thereafter, due to the severity of his injuries, he was medically evacuated from the ship at 0710 to USNHY via helicopter. He was treated and released on 18 June 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several points from that report stand out to me;  the fatalities were in starboard Berthing 2, the last survivors were recovered in a drowning state from starboard Berthing 2, including a man who had been in the starboard head at the time of collision and reported great difficulty escaping, Berthing 2 flooded in an astonishing 90 seconds.  FC1 Gary Rehm's body was recovered from the starboard Berthing 2 head.  FC1 Rehm was separately reported to have made multiple trips into Berthing 2 to recover shipmates.  The last of Rehm's rescue attempts would have been extremely dangerous, and he would have known his chances of return.  FC1 Gary Rehm deserves the highest recognition for his bravery, his service to shipmates and best ideals of the United States Navy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brutal descriptions of a brutal reality, predictable. Censuring of senior officers for failing to instill safe watchkeeping practice also predicted. What's still missing is specific details about the failure to avoid the 900' ship.

Share this post


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

Brutal descriptions of a brutal reality, predictable. Censuring of senior officers for failing to instill safe watchkeeping practice also predicted. What's still missing is specific details about the failure to avoid the 900' ship.

This report is supplemental to a previous "Line of Duty Investigation" and not intended to address the cause of the collision. When someone in the service dies, there is a legal requirement to make a determination as to if the death occurred in the line of duty and if it was due to the individual's own misconduct. For example, someone dying while committing a criminal act and on unauthorized absence would likely be found to have died Not in the line of duty and due to his own misconduct. While it may seem pretty straightforward, it has an impact on survivor benefits so it is done formally with lots of deliberation.

Here, the previous report referenced found the sailors died both in the line of duty and not to their won misconduct. The Commander then the investigating officer to expand the report to include post collision damage control and life saving efforts. That's what this report is about so there should be no surprise that it does not address how the collision occurred.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loss of the situational awareness also involves consideration of observation/instrumentation capabilities - not the sort of operational capability that should be detailed in a public report. Note the released report heavily redacted the layout of the crew berthing.  As well as details about the sonar station.

Share this post


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

 

As I read this I can't help but think of Kimmel and Short.

Fall guys all.

Not so in any way. CO is always ultimately responsible for his ship. He approved the OODs, he was in his cabin, his ship was hit, damaged, and people died.

 

Its also not hard to see how XO and CMC fall under the "lost confidence in their ability to lead" as they have a role in the training and qualification of sailors as well as advising the CO on the fitness and competence of individual watchstanders.  If they hadn't lodged concerns over the watch teams members, then their judgement gets questioned as well

Yes, it's a hard and demanding service...but they knew that going in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Port Wine said:

There is a bond between those who go to sea. Always has been and always will be. RIP those who don't make it back. Those who make it back will always remember....

There is a bond between all military members. It's a military thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 10:53 AM, Morgan Crewed said:

5945508303001_ACXCrystalTrack.JPG.5c2d1ff1925b2ed139f0b5a23d8f4b10.JPGI think the “hit” occurred at/near Point #7 when the speed was the lowest.

Let’s break this down along a timeline:

Point   Speed Heading          Date    UTC

1          18.5     68*                   06.16   16:28

2          17.3     112*                             16:30

3          14.6     95*                               16:36

4          8.1       310*                             17:05

5          8.5       237*                             17:40

6          2.9       68*                               17:52

7          1.0       40*                               18:36  

8          12.6     73*                               19:28

I think UTC is +9?

Seems like a lot of U-turns in the middle of the night.

Story is rather different now.  USN report says course of the Fitzgerald was 230 at the time of the collision and the diagram in the report shows the collision at an oblique angle with the freighter coming from astern.  This would be closer to point 5 in the diagram above, after the "crazy Ivan" maneuver (points 1 to 4).  Hmmm.

Share this post


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

The collision was at point 2.

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

Edited by AlienBowman
. . . roughly the same direction . . . the course from point 5 to 6 would more closely approximate the bearing of the frieghter if the Fitzgerald were on 230. Hence my bewilderment.

Share this post


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

Story is rather different now.  USN report says course of the Fitzgerald was 230 at the time of the collision and the diagram in the report shows the collision at an oblique angle with the freighter coming from astern.  This would be closer to point 5 in the diagram above, after the "crazy Ivan" maneuver (points 1 to 4).  Hmmm.

The collision was at position 2, we know this because of the times listed.  1630 UTC is 0130 local.

What's interesting is that the Fitz was steering 230.....making this very likely a head-on situation and not a crossing situation.  Reciprocal of 230 is 050, very close to the 068 Crystal was steering.  The next question is how do the ships go from a nearly head-on aspect to the collision aspect described.  Perhaps the Crystal turned hard starboard (as its captain described) and the Fitz turned even harder to port at the same time.  Perhaps the two ships interpreted the situation differently - one as a crossing and the other as a head-on.  Different nav light aspects could cause that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, coyotepup said:

The collision was at position 2, we know this because of the times listed.  1630 UTC is 0130 local.

What's interesting is that the Fitz was steering 230.....making this very likely a head-on situation and not a crossing situation.  Reciprocal of 230 is 050, very close to the 068 Crystal was steering.  The next question is how do the ships go from a nearly head-on aspect to the collision aspect described.  Perhaps the Crystal turned hard starboard (as its captain described) and the Fitz turned even harder to port at the same time.  Perhaps the two ships interpreted the situation differently - one as a crossing and the other as a head-on.  Different nav light aspects could cause that.

Look at the Navy's diagram in the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crystal on a course of 112d, Fitz on a course of 230d.  Fitz throws a port rudder to come up closer to 112d and gets nailed on the starboard.  Suggests Fitz saw something and made the wrong move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AlienBowman said:

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

The report says that Fitzgerald was on a course of 230T at midnight. My guess is that's directly out of the midnight deck log entry (Quartermaster of the Watch starts each day's log entry with a summary of the condition of the ship at midnight). By 0130 they may have been on a different course consistent with ACX being on a northeasterly heading and striking Fitzgerald at point 2 with the geometry shown in the Navy report diagram. All changes of course and speed after midnight would also be recorded in the deck log.

Being as this report is focused on the DC aspects I suspect the geometry of the contact between the two ships is accurate and the detail is lacking as to how they came to be in that position. That will be in another report. And apparently that investigation has already discovered enough fuck-uppery in Fitzgerald to relieve the senior leadership for cause.

Share this post


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

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

 

Not at all. The freighter turned to starboard directly before impact as required by COLREGS. That was never a secret. At the time of impact the freighter's course would have been around 160.

Share this post


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

If it were at point 2, the USN report is in error because it says the Fitzgerald was on a course of 230 and was hit by the freighter going in the same direction.  There is a diagram in the report.

The collision was at point #2.  This was cleared up later in my post #98.  Where I said:

"The [Japanese] coast guard initially said the collision occurred at 2:20 a.m. because the Philippine ship had reported it at 2:25 a.m. and said it just happened. After interviewing Filipino crewmembers, the coast guard has changed the collision time to 1:30 a.m.

In my post above I speculated that the hit was at about point #7.  Then, after RKoch’s confirmation of  +9 UTC, I agreed that the hit could have been at about point #5 and because of the reported U-turn BEFORE the hit.

Now the news of a 1 hour delay indicates the hit was at point #2.  This would mean ACX Crystal made the U-turn AFTER the hit while on a constant heading of 68 degrees and going 18.5 kts.  That would make for a significant strike."

The illustration referenced was BEFORE the one hour time difference when it was initially thought the collision occured at 2:20 AM, instead of 1:30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Navy report says collision at "approximately 1:30" collision alarm at 1:32.  The Crystal AIS course at 1:30 is 112d with radical course changes over the next 6 minutes.  Is it possible that Crystal could have steered that course?...or was she driven through that change of course by the impact with Fitz.   I've never seen a freighter make a 100d course change in what would be about 4 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Gunni said:

Navy report says collision at "approximately 1:30" collision alarm at 1:32.  The Crystal AIS course at 1:30 is 112d with radical course changes over the next 6 minutes.  Is it possible that Crystal could have steered that course?...or was she driven through that change of course by the impact with Fitz.   I've never seen a freighter make a 100d course change in what would be about 4 minutes.

I just pulled this at random, but i recalled most large ships at full speed, can turn 90 degrees from base course in about 3 minutes at half ahead, and about 2 minutes at full ahead, as typically recorded during sea trials and later posted on the bridge as tactical-circles in the Maneuvering Characteristics.  They won't do it like being on rails, there will be a lot of sliding advance along with the course-changing transfer.

Seems so:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEViwaYpdZe6gAZS0nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Tactical+Circles+For+700-foot+Container+Ship&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shipsbusiness.com%2Fturning-circle-containership4.jpg&action=click

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From: SUPPLEMENTAL TIMELINE OF EVENTS ABOARD USS FITZGERALD FOLLOWING COLLISION AT SEA ON OR ABOUT 17 JUN 17 

The following abbreviations are used: 
FTZ – USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) 
CDS 15 – Commander, Destroyer Squadron FIFTEEN 
CFAY – Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka 
JMSDF – Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force 

 

All times are approximate 

[2345 watch change, via someone playing expert on twitter]
0130 approximate time of collision
0132 FTZ sounds collision alarm for two seconds.
[...]
0200 FTZ makes initial report of collision at sea to CDS 15 via personal cell phone at approximately 0220.
[...]
0218 Japanese Coast Guard en route to FTZ location.
[...]
0417 Large merchant identified as “HCX Crystal.” 
0437 Japan Coast Guard vessel KANO arrives to render assistance.
[...]

 

 

 

Not a good picture if you condense the timeline a bit.

Share this post


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

Crystal on a course of 112d, Fitz on a course of 230d.  Fitz throws a port rudder to come up closer to 112d and gets nailed on the starboard.  Suggests Fitz saw something and made the wrong move. 

 

      agreed this action came too late...way too late....but what would have been better given the untenable situation ?    ALL BACK FULL !!  ??  (with a healthy dose of right full rudder)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlienBowman said:

Look at the Navy's diagram in the report.

Yes, I'm well aware, I read the whole report from top to bottom.  The collision happened at 0130 local, this is perfectly well established, and the Crystal was at position 2 at 1630 UTC, which is 0130 local.  Period.

They changed course before the collision.  Obviously.  They didn't just slam into each other without some kind of course change first.  The fact is that in every Navy collision not involving a submarine, and I was required to study basically all of them, course changes happen before the collision.  Ships don't blunder blindly into each other, and as fun as it has been to wonder why a team of trained Navy officers and watchstanders with radar up the wazoo couldn't see a massive container ship, I think it's time to understand the truth here: they are absolutely guaranteed to have seen the Crystal, probably from a very long way away, and made a very large mistake in judgment as to what the Crystal was doing.  Common threads in all collision case studies have been these: the ships involved definitely saw each other, and failed to recognize the other as a threat to collide until it was too late, at which point they made a large rudder change to fruitlessly try to avoid the inevitable.  One way or the other, that's what will come out in the wash here.

But the collision was still at point 2 on the Crystal's track.

Share this post


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

0130 approximate time of collision

0132 FTZ sounds collision alarm for two seconds.
[...]
0200 FTZ makes initial report of collision at sea to CDS 15 via personal cell phone at approximately 0220.
[...]
0218 Japanese Coast Guard en route to FTZ location.
[...]
0417 Large merchant identified as “HCX Crystal.” 

So it took the same about 50 minutes for the Fitz to report the collision. Despite the big watch team. And obviously they weren't watching the AIS data send by the ACX, since they didn't identify the ship. Why wouldn't they watch AIS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coyote; I too have read the entire report, soup to nuts.  See nothing that would support Fitzgerald acknowledged their collision course.  No note of course change.  No ship to ship comms.   No alarm.  No call to the CO.  I see ACX Crystal taking the appropriate course change to starboard prior to collision confirming recogition of their status, but there is no indication that Fitzgerald had situational awareness either from a head-on approach or a crossing approach.  There is nothing in the AIS track or behavior of the ACX that would indicate they were steering a 'confusing' course.  This doesn't even rise to the level of the Porter incompetence where the bridge babble was cut short soon enough to sound a colliision alarm.  Porter attempted a squirrel-run across the bow of a freighter in contravention of COLREG and had a similar outcome to Fitzgerald.  We can assume that Fitzgerald saw Crystal because Aegis but by the same capability they don't get off the hook for 'confusion' about what Crystal was doing, Crystal was doing exactly what you would expect them to be doing, starboard course change.  We see again a lack of compliance with COLREG navigation rules by a Navy warship.  Fitzgerald could have demonstrated navigational proficiency well off by observing the standard of COLREG performance - make your course change known early and sufficient to show intent.   There is zero evidence for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gunni said:

Coyote; I too have read the entire report, soup to nuts.  See nothing that would support Fitzgerald acknowledged their collision course.  No note of course change.  No ship to ship comms.   No alarm.  No call to the CO.  I see ACX Crystal taking the appropriate course change to starboard prior to collision confirming recogition of their status, but there is no indication that Fitzgerald had situational awareness either from a head-on approach or a crossing approach.  There is nothing in the AIS track or behavior of the ACX that would indicate they were steering a 'confusing' course.  This doesn't even rise to the level of the Porter incompetence where the bridge babble was cut short soon enough to sound a colliision alarm.  Porter attempted a squirrel-run across the bow of a freighter in contravention of COLREG and had a similar outcome to Fitzgerald.  We can assume that Fitzgerald saw Crystal because Aegis but by the same capability they don't get off the hook for 'confusion' about what Crystal was doing, Crystal was doing exactly what you would expect them to be doing, starboard course change.  We see again a lack of compliance with COLREG navigation rules by a Navy warship.  Fitzgerald could have demonstrated navigational proficiency well off by observing the standard of COLREG performance - make your course change known early and sufficient to show intent.   There is zero evidence for that. 

Yeah, that's because the report was a report specifically on the damage control efforts, not the causes of collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still too soon to know of course, but I suspect that the Fitz missed that the shipping lanes / VTS required a course change.  When likely first spotted, the ACX was on a different, non threatening heading.  But once she changed course (while following the vts) the CPA was changed.  Had the fitz also followed the vts route she would have come to stbd and that would be what the act ship would have reasonably expected.  By not making the turn, the last half mile of closure would have come quite quickly and suddenly, resulting in a last minute, in extremis, attempt to turn to stbd.

 

(just my theory, as I don't have the charts to confirm positions relative to the vts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, coyotepup said:

Yeah, that's because the report was a report specifically on the damage control efforts, not the causes of collision.

With the Fitzgerald's course, speed; the ACX Crystal's course, maneuvers, timeline, position, speed and the angle of impact we now have the cause of collision - failure to comply with COLREG Rules of Navigation.  The only question is why.  And perhaps why this has happened twice in recent years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand this diagram correctly the eastern leg of the VTS extended for between 2 and 5 nm on bearing 060 from the line due south of Mikomoto Shima

TSS.jpg

 

Seems collision occurred at about position 2 on this diagram:  possibly just before, possibly just after hard starboard manoeuvre by ACX Crystal.

ACX Crystal Track.JPG

This diagram shows slight port helm manoeuvre by ACX Crystal at say 10 minutes (3nm) before Point 2, which we might presume to be the course change corresponding to the change in axis of the VTS from 090 to 060.

USN report puts USS Fitzgerald course 230 at 0000hr local, 90 minutes before impact, which at 20kt was about 30nm before reaching the area of impact

We have, as yet, no idea of any subsequent course or speed changes by Fitzgerald but it seems unlikely that Fitzgerald would have held that exact course and speed for 90 minutes through quite dense merchant traffic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gunni said:

With the Fitzgerald's course, speed; the ACX Crystal's course, maneuvers, timeline, position, speed and the angle of impact we now have the cause of collision - failure to comply with COLREG Rules of Navigation.  The only question is why.  And perhaps why this has happened twice in recent years. 

I suggest you inform the Navy that you have the answer to the questions they're asking, they'll be glad to know they can put down their pencils and issue a report to that effect.  I can't imagine why neither them nor any of us have come to such an obvious conclusion based on the partial evidence we have in front of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joakim said:

So it took the same about 50 minutes for the Fitz to report the collision. Despite the big watch team. And obviously they weren't watching the AIS data send by the ACX, since they didn't identify the ship. Why wouldn't they watch AIS?

Their radio gear was taken out in the collision. They finally were able to report the collision by phone. IDK if it was cell phone or satellite.

Share this post


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

If I understand this diagram correctly the eastern leg of the VTS extended for between 2 and 5 nm on bearing 060 from the line due south of Mikomoto Shima

TSS.jpg

 

Seems collision occurred at about position 2 on this diagram:  possibly just before, possibly just after hard starboard manoeuvre by ACX Crystal.

ACX Crystal Track.JPG

This diagram shows slight port helm manoeuvre by ACX Crystal at say 10 minutes (3nm) before Point 2, which we might presume to be the course change corresponding to the change in axis of the VTS from 090 to 060.

USN report puts USS Fitzgerald course 230 at 0000hr local, 90 minutes before impact, which at 20kt was about 30nm before reaching the area of impact

We have, as yet, no idea of any subsequent course or speed changes by Fitzgerald but it seems unlikely that Fitzgerald would have held that exact course and speed for 90 minutes through quite dense merchant traffic.

 

 

ACX Crystal was following a traffic zone. The course change corresponds to staying in their lane. Not sure what the Fitz was doing, as they don't appear to have been staying in their lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mean to be glib, as this was a tragic event, but I learnt at an early age that going down a traffic lane the wrong way, with a small crossing angle, is a really bad idea.

Please excuse the long sentence, as I have had a spot of rum. 

Share this post


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

Their radio gear was taken out in the collision. They finally were able to report the collision by phone. IDK if it was cell phone or satellite.

The timeline says cell phone. No emergency VHF? Shouldn't take 50 minutes to find a cell phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joakim said:

The timeline says cell phone. No emergency VHF? Shouldn't take 50 minutes to find a cell phone.

You'll have to ask the Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine in the early minutes, trying to assess damage, save lives, save the ship, and a few other details, that calling dad wouldn't be the first priority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

I would imagine in the early minutes, trying to assess damage, save lives, save the ship, and a few other details, that calling dad wouldn't be the first priority

We heard that comms were disrupted.  So no hand-held VHF on the bridge?  I was always told the immediate channel 16 mandatory call was:

"Pan-pan, pan-pan, US warship bla bla, position bla bla, in collision with unidentified vessel, assessing damage, will report more details or request assistance if needed, 320 people aboard, Pan-pan US warship bla bla, over."

Cellphone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driving home, CNN just said it happened again.  No details.   Merchant ship hit or is hit by destroyer!

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/245407/uss-john-s-mccain-collides-with-merchant-ship-near-strait-malacca

http://wavy.com/2017/08/20/uss-john-mccain-collision/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep its a thing, maybe we will now have a "war on merchant ships" since we have a war on virtually every fucking thing these days that gets Americans scared.

Share this post


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

You guys are getting good at this. :o

Hopefully damage control is good on this ship as well.   Clearly the Navy has some institutional failures they are blaming their captains for.  Maybe they need to fire the admiral too (no pension). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF another crash with a merchant ship! There's some serious failure of command on US Naval vessels this year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the John McCain was hit up the rear.  What was the name of the tanker? - the Donald Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It reminds me of this quote from the Battle of Jutland, after the second ship sunk:

Quote

"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" (Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 sailors missing, 5 injuries. Holy fucking crap. Whether or not they had the right of way, I'd like to have confidence our ships aren't continually running in to shit. Did fucking Brent Swain make these boats?

Share this post


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

Seems like the John McCain was hit up the rear.  What was the name of the tanker? - the Donald Trump?

I had not heard that there were missing sailors, so I retract this comment as inappropriate.

Share this post


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

WTF! Standdown?

There does seem to be a training problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That should be the 4th incident in 2017 for Yokosuka Fleet Command.
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56), collsion with tanker on 21 August 2017, 5 injured 10 missing in initial reports
USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), collision with container ship on 17 June 2017, 7 dead several injured
USS Lake Champlain (CG-57), collision with fishing vessel on May 9, 2017, no injuries
USS Antietam (CG-54), grounding on 31 January 2017, no injuries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some admirals in Washington need to resign. The problem extends far beyond the confused egotistical officers of the ships.

Or better, close the navy. We do not need portable runways, or whatever dubious product they provide, for our 380 BILLION dollars.

I sail out there. I don't feel safe with the U.S. Navy on the same water. They should retire to safe ports for a few years. Figure out the radar and rudder thing. What if there was a real war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mirror16 said:

If only our cash-strapped Navy could afford radar. 

You mean afford people to stand outside on the wings and watch for danger with handset phones they csn pickup and talk to the IMportant people with. Maybe give them some steiners and a thermos of coffee. Shit, for 30 bucks an hour and room and board I would be happy to do two 4 hour watches a day for a few weeks a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, WTF?

Situational awareness seems to have gone bubbling down the head.

Nothing to say, until more facts emerge, but the pattern is a bit broken, innit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Chasm said:

Image of the damage, via twiter

USS John McCain collision damage DHuFAOHVoAAFJ3d.jpg

At least, it's on port. 

Share this post


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

Seriously, WTF?

Situational awareness seems to have gone bubbling down the head.

Nothing to say, until more facts emerge, but the pattern is a bit broken, innit?

Yes. There's definately something wrong with our sailors.

Share this post


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

Image of the damage, via twiter

USS John McCain collision damage DHuFAOHVoAAFJ3d.jpg

I don't know for a fact, but read a story that said the damage is at an aft berthing compartment. Could be déjà Vu. Keeping fingers crossed for the missing sailors, but expecting the worst.

another report said the destroyer had a steering failure earlier, but it was repaired before the collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RKoch said:

Yes. There's definately something wrong with our sailors.

Noooo, not all sailors, just the ones responsible for safely operating the floating weapons system In a public seaway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites