Bruno

Tanker hits Destoyer, how is this possible?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, coyotepup said:

The only real advantage I see is that it would give the merchant ship a name to call a Navy ship.  Its radars should still pick it up as a surface contact and track a CPA.  A halfway decent radio call in any case - whether or not you know the name of the contact - should give the ship you're hailing your range and bearing from them.  "Navy warship, Navy warship, Navy, warship, this is ACX Crystal, 6,000 yards off your starboard bow."  You don't need a name to make that call and now you've made yourself perfectly clear.  No AIS required.

The Navy will not reliably answer VHF hails, IME. I'd like to think that's because they are listening and making decisions about the wisdom of returning the calls. However, when I was monitoring VHF 16&13 many hours a day while near a major Navy base the Navy routinely provided comic relief screwing up passing agreements between Navy vessels, failing to reach Port Control (wrong channel), repeatedly broadcasting test messages, failing to communicate successfully with their small boats. They were uniquely incompetent on the airwaves. That was some years ago. I trust things have gotten better. But I don't have a lot of faith that I can count on getting in touch with a Navy vessel over the VHF. Gotta hope YMMV.

Share this post


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

The only real advantage I see is that it would give the merchant ship a name to call a Navy ship.  Its radars should still pick it up as a surface contact and track a CPA.  A halfway decent radio call in any case - whether or not you know the name of the contact - should give the ship you're hailing your range and bearing from them.  "Navy warship, Navy warship, Navy, warship, this is ACX Crystal, 6,000 yards off your starboard bow."  You don't need a name to make that call and now you've made yourself perfectly clear.  No AIS required.

I think it's a big improvement to see almost instant CPA information vs. several minutes delayed CPA from a radar. When calling VHF without the name of the vessel, how would you know it's a Navy warship and why would you use yards as distance? Now all the ships within 50 nm or so start looking around and there may be some that didn't really catch what you said and may call back to ask you to repeat. All that would be avoided with a direct DSC call using AIS information.

If AIS is not that useful, why does IMO require it to be used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you use yards anyway?  And a good hail call includes something like "calling the ship approaching buoy 1" or "2 miles south of the Three Sisters".  Nothing more useless than a "ship off my starboard bow" call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your a merchant call the Navy, using yards for ranges under a couple mikes isn't a bad idea...it's the unit of measure they think in...now as was said earlier,if it's the Navy calling a merchant, they shouldn't use yards, as only us American Navy guys use yards as a unit of measure.

There are times when a reference to a buoy or prominent point is useful, but also times when it's not. If the bridge team is not familiar with the geo reference you used, then more time is lost as they go look at the charts to try to find it...

Share this post


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

 only us American Navy guys use yards as a unit of measure.

Is that right? I sailed with an active Australian naval officer who'd transferred from the UK and he claimed that both those navies were still using yards and cables. That was only a few years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 1:22 PM, Rule69 said:

The Navy will not reliably answer VHF hails, IME. I'd like to think that's because they are listening and making decisions about the wisdom of returning the calls. However, when I was monitoring VHF 16&13 many hours a day while near a major Navy base the Navy routinely provided comic relief screwing up passing agreements between Navy vessels, failing to reach Port Control (wrong channel), repeatedly broadcasting test messages, failing to communicate successfully with their small boats. They were uniquely incompetent on the airwaves. That was some years ago. I trust things have gotten better. But I don't have a lot of faith that I can count on getting in touch with a Navy vessel over the VHF. Gotta hope YMMV.

I would tend to dispute the conclusion, obviously, but even if 100% true, squawking AIS isn't going to change that.  It might make it worse, if you adopt the idea of having a rotating fake name.  "Who are we this week, again?  The M/V Galactic Superstar?"  "No, that was last week, now we're the SS Megalithic."  I'm sure it would be a bullet in the nav brief, but still.  And then, of course, the jig is completely up the moment the "Megalithic" responds on VHF (especially if accidentally as "Warship 5-4" which is how Navy ships refer to themselves on VHF) and it's obvious to the entire friggin' world that "Megalithic" is actually the big gray warship.

 

20 hours ago, Joakim said:

I think it's a big improvement to see almost instant CPA information vs. several minutes delayed CPA from a radar. When calling VHF without the name of the vessel, how would you know it's a Navy warship and why would you use yards as distance? Now all the ships within 50 nm or so start looking around and there may be some that didn't really catch what you said and may call back to ask you to repeat. All that would be avoided with a direct DSC call using AIS information.

If AIS is not that useful, why does IMO require it to be used?

How many merchant ships are going to confuse themselves with a Navy warship?  And if they missed the "Navy warship" part of the call, then they'd have missed anything in that part of the call, whether it's a ship name or not.  And in the end, what's the worst that happened in your scenario - a couple bridge watchstanders on uninvolved ships were inconvenienced and had to spend a couple minutes updating on their situational awareness?  Horrors.

And radar will pick up a contact a LONG way away.  This is not something that happens within a mile or two.  It happens within ten or twelve miles.  Perfectly adequate time for a CPA to be calculated.

The Navy is not going to hand potential adversaries a tool to track their ships and learn their traffic patterns.  Yes, it can be done in other, more difficult ways.  Why make it easier?

Share this post


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

I would tend to dispute the conclusion, obviously, but even if 100% true, squawking AIS isn't going to change that.  It might make it worse, if you adopt the idea of having a rotating fake name.  "Who are we this week, again?  The M/V Galactic Superstar?"  "No, that was last week, now we're the SS Megalithic."  I'm sure it would be a bullet in the nav brief, but still.  And then, of course, the jig is completely up the moment the "Megalithic" responds on VHF (especially if accidentally as "Warship 5-4" which is how Navy ships refer to themselves on VHF) and it's obvious to the entire friggin' world that "Megalithic" is actually the big gray warship.

 

How many merchant ships are going to confuse themselves with a Navy warship?  And if they missed the "Navy warship" part of the call, then they'd have missed anything in that part of the call, whether it's a ship name or not.  And in the end, what's the worst that happened in your scenario - a couple bridge watchstanders on uninvolved ships were inconvenienced and had to spend a couple minutes updating on their situational awareness?  Horrors.

And radar will pick up a contact a LONG way away.  This is not something that happens within a mile or two.  It happens within ten or twelve miles.  Perfectly adequate time for a CPA to be calculated.

The Navy is not going to hand potential adversaries a tool to track their ships and learn their traffic patterns.  Yes, it can be done in other, more difficult ways.  Why make it easier?

Biggest issue with AIS and warships is that it provides anyone anywhere in the world target quality coordinates for both stand off and long range weapons. If you are in visual range, who gives a shit as they are in direct line of site range, optically guided weapons. 

On one hand, AIS is probably advisable for most routine port arrivals and departures. As folks upthread pointed out, folks generally knew she was coming in the next morning so would be transiting the entry that night. On the other hand, it just goes against the grain to hand out targeting data on the WWW.

in any case, the merchant captain's statement seems to make it clear he had no trouble tracking the Fitz and apparently made no "in the blind" traffic calls on VHF.  AIS may have helped but lack of it didn't appear to cause the collision. 

Share this post


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

How many merchant ships are going to confuse themselves with a Navy warship?  And if they missed the "Navy warship" part of the call, then they'd have missed anything in that part of the call, whether it's a ship name or not.  And in the end, what's the worst that happened in your scenario - a couple bridge watchstanders on uninvolved ships were inconvenienced and had to spend a couple minutes updating on their situational awareness?  Horrors.

And radar will pick up a contact a LONG way away.  This is not something that happens within a mile or two.  It happens within ten or twelve miles.  Perfectly adequate time for a CPA to be calculated.

The Navy is not going to hand potential adversaries a tool to track their ships and learn their traffic patterns.  Yes, it can be done in other, more difficult ways.  Why make it easier?

How do you know it's a Navy Warship? Sure it's rather easy in daylight, but this collision was in the middle of the night and could have been in fog.

Radar works very well for CPA, if both ships keep their course and speed. In this collision The ACX made a course change 11 minutes before the collision and the Fitz probably even later changed its course, speed or both. So having e.g. three minute delayed CPA (like the paper I linked showed) certainly may have been a big issue.

I don't know about the USN, but I pay much more attension to VHF DSC calls. You know it's targetted to just our boat or it is something important like Mayday. The alarm is also quite much louder then VHF voice and you need to push a button to stop it. I would quite likely miss at least the first call, if someone would call on 16 just giving coordinates or distance from another vessel. So I think that AIS giving the possibility to a direct DSC call is a very important feature.

Nothing bad about uninvolved ships looking around. But if they start asking questions on the VHF, they cause a delay in the communication with the one you would need to talk to.

Share this post


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

 squawking AIS isn't going to change that [the navy might not answer the phone].

Perhaps I misunderstand your point? An alarm sounding on the bridge is likely to get attention and DSC should also help getting a two way going. Those are among the benefits that come from running transponders.

I recognize that there are complexities. If the system gets turned on and off there are decisions to be made and expectations to be considered. Sending false signals on AIS seems like a bad idea. Sometimes it is going to be in the interest of war ships to run silent. Still, the navy ought to be receiving AIS and getting CPA / TCPA alarms from targets ~all the time~. Such systems are simple, cheap, readily available and stealthy. Which is one of the reasons I can't understand why Fitz didn't seem to notice that she was standing into danger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the number of poorly filled out AIS transmitters I see around here I can't think of any reason thee USN couldn't just transmit their location and speed. At least when operating near/around heavy traffic and TSS. While I am holding out judgment on who was legally at fault I have to believe that had the FITZ been broadcasting AIS the collision would have been far less likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USN is so worried about AIS data going to the internet, they could use just minimal transmission power. Something like 1 mW would be heard several nm with a line of sight, but not heard by the coastal station outputting the data to the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake name / signal (aircraft do this) no reason why they can run numerous id's & maybe they already do. 

I'm they are equipped to receive AIS. 

Share this post


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

If the USN is so worried about AIS data going to the internet, they could use just minimal transmission power. Something like 1 mW would be heard several nm with a line of sight, but not heard by the coastal station outputting the data to the internet.

Besides IB's scenario above, which is completely valid, think USS Cole, but rather than being anchored, now you're underway, approaching harbor, with shipping traffic thrown in, and a TSS, and then a small wooden or fiberglass boat that can do 30 kts or so crammed with explosives.  At night.  What's the chance the Bridge Team picks up that target?  Again, you can't make the big grey warship invisible, but why make it easy?

 

Share this post


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

If the USN is so worried about AIS data going to the internet, they could use just minimal transmission power. Something like 1 mW would be heard several nm with a line of sight, but not heard by the coastal station outputting the data to the internet.

If this was the reason, the solution doesn't work.  Not all AIS receive stations are coastal.  A growing number are satellite.

Share this post


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

Besides IB's scenario above, which is completely valid, think USS Cole, but rather than being anchored, now you're underway, approaching harbor, with shipping traffic thrown in, and a TSS, and then a small wooden or fiberglass boat that can do 30 kts or so crammed with explosives.  At night.  What's the chance the Bridge Team picks up that target?  Again, you can't make the big grey warship invisible, but why make it easy?

 

"At night.  What's the chance the Bridge Team picks up that target? "

The the 'bridge" CO and OOD always own the outcome.  The primary duty of spotting and tracking targets fails on the CIC, Combat Information Center, Ops Center.  It is always dark in there.  The real purpose of CIC is to spot, track, identify a threat with a firing solution to destroy the threat before anyone could see the threat with the human eye.  The modern US military is all about kill and destroy before you can see it and most importantly kill it before it can see and strike you. 

 

It is always dark in the CIC with as many as 21 sailors working the screens and solutions at a time:

 

6992638cc4ccb60d16d2b0755af13374.jpg

 

The CIC calls it and offers solutions and recommendations.  The bridge orders the execution and outcomes.  Turn the wheel evade or fire the proposed  weapons  solution to destroy.  No threat should ever be close enough to strike.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS and The Navy.  You never give your exact location to anyone who could be an enemy or threat.  Even NK has missiles now.  Why tell them where the assets are? Ever!  Why not put a GPS tracker on the top of POTUS's Beast machine, AF-1, or Marine One so the  media could report where they are?  Because someone could use that data to launch a threat.  AIS would allow the Russians to simultaneously destroy the  entire surface fleet including submarines on the surface in less than 30 minutes.  

Yes, when a carrier has published their return to base.  The carrier might turn on AIS once they are locked into the channel and arrival.   There is no need to publish and great risk to publish the location of the entire Navy at the same time.  Note: When the carrier is headed in.  One has already left port and the air group has joined ready for WAR if it comes to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Boo-Yah said:

"At night.  What's the chance the Bridge Team picks up that target? "

The the 'bridge" CO and OOD always own the outcome.  The primary duty of spotting and tracking targets fails on the CIC, Combat Information Center, Ops Center.  It is always dark in there.  The real purpose of CIC is to spot, track, identify a threat with a firing solution to destroy the threat before anyone could see the threat with the human eye.  The modern US military is all about kill and destroy before you can see it and most importantly kill it before it can see and strike you. 

 

It is always dark in the CIC with as many as 21 sailors working the screens and solutions at a time:

 

6992638cc4ccb60d16d2b0755af13374.jpg

 

The CIC calls it and offers solutions and recommendations.  The bridge orders the execution and outcomes.  Turn the wheel evade or fire the proposed  weapons  solution to destroy.  No threat should ever be close enough to strike.  

In a coastal environment, that Boston Whaler that barely shows up on radar on a good day goes from Ma and Pa Kettle catching some fish to a threat in about 60 seconds......

Share this post


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

In a coastal environment, that Boston Whaler that barely shows up on radar on a good day goes from Ma and Pa Kettle catching some fish to a threat in about 60 seconds......

That is one reason the Navy will send a RIB to check out Ma and Pa.  If you point the bow directly at a US Navy ship and run a direct high speed course in the direction of a US Navy ship you are risking your life.  In US Waters at 500 yards you are an active felon...

 

"Mariners who violate a Naval Vessel Protection Zone will be perceived as a threat, and will face a quick, determined, and severe response. Violators are subject to arrest, prosecution, and, if convicted, imprisonment for up to six years and a fine of up to $250,000."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo Yah,

I generally agree with most of what you say...that said, how many RIBs were with the Fitz?  CIC is great and wonderful, but that doesn't mean it see's everything.  Nothing does.  Plus in the environment they were in, what looks like a fishing boat on radar only a couple miles away (or less) could turn into a threat awfully fast.  Esp with no RIB, esp in an area where the threat level isn't elevated thru the roof.  Sensors and systems don't/can't generally detect or stop that kind of threat.  You need good intel to know whether or not you're being targeted...or that someone is planning/trying to target ships in your area...but intel not perfect either...hence no need to make the job any easier for the ones you might not know about.

I spent a fair amount of my post navy career working Maritime Domain Awareness for the USCG, and the small boat threat response for USN.  It remains a challenging asyemetric threat environment..

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the big screen showing Japan and the Korean peninsula and little else. Like early Atari video games. 

If it's a aerial or marine surface radar display I would expect way more targets

If it's a chart it's lacking a bit of detail :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boo-Yah said:

That is one reason the Navy will send a RIB to check out Ma and Pa.  If you point the bow directly at a US Navy ship and run a direct high speed course in the direction of a US Navy ship you are risking your life.  In US Waters at 500 yards you are an active felon...

 

"Mariners who violate a Naval Vessel Protection Zone will be perceived as a threat, and will face a quick, determined, and severe response. Violators are subject to arrest, prosecution, and, if convicted, imprisonment for up to six years and a fine of up to $250,000."

 

 

They might chase someone off in Norfolk or Annapolis by threatening all kinds of fines and so on, but in international/other nations waters they would have no authority to go chasing locals.

Funny day on the water:

Sailing along in light air, barely moving. A Dutch flagged destroyer is going to pass close by. I call them on the radio to discuss this 500 yard rule, seeing as I am going about 1 knot, and the pilot aboard has no idea if it applies to NATO ships or just USA ships. I don't either. He decides to solve the problem by hitting the gas and going by at speed so the "violation" only lasted a few seconds :lol:

Share this post


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

They might chase someone off in Norfolk or Annapolis by threatening all kinds of fines and so on, but in international/other nations waters they would have no authority to go chasing locals.

Funny day on the water:

Sailing along in light air, barely moving. A Dutch flagged destroyer is going to pass close by. I call them on the radio to discuss this 500 yard rule, seeing as I am going about 1 knot, and the pilot aboard has no idea if it applies to NATO ships or just USA ships. I don't either. He decides to solve the problem by hitting the gas and going by at speed so the "violation" only lasted a few seconds :lol:

The basic guidelines are as follows:

  • Vessels within 500 yards of a U.S. naval vessel must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course and proceed as directed by the official patrol.

  • Recreational and commercial vessels are not allowed within 100 yards of a U.S. naval vessel, unless authorized by the official patrol.

  • Vessels requesting to pass within 100 yards of a U.S. naval vessel must contact the official patrol on VHF-FM channel 16. The official patrol may permit vessels that can operate safely only in a navigable channel to pass within 100 yards of a U.S. naval vessel in order to ensure a safe passage in accordance with the Navigation Rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If been mentioned before, sorry for not reading the entire thread. Good insight, great read.

'The Queen Of The North Disaster'  by Colin Henthorne. The Captain's Story. Harbour Publishing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the boys that going to go toe to toe with the North Koreans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mabe they had to slip their cable to avoid being rammed by a containership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I love the big screen showing Japan and the Korean peninsula and little else. Like early Atari video games.

That pic needs an  "approved for public release" watermark :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know how many of those seats are equipped for  and task with the duty to notice another very large surface vessel?  The crew interviews are likely very interesting for some of those seats and the officer and senior enlisted tasked with supervising them.

navyDisp01.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Boo-Yah said:

Anyone know how many of those seats are equipped for  and task with the duty to notice another very large surface vessel?  The crew interviews are likely very interesting for some of those seats and the officer and senior enlisted tasked with supervising them.

navyDisp01.jpg

 

 

Depends on what is going on. some of those seats could be empty given the return to port evolution. Will likely be many interesting interviews, chief among them the CIC Watch Officer and the OOD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Boo-Yah said:

Anyone know how many of those seats are equipped for  and task with the duty to notice another very large surface vessel?  The crew interviews are likely very interesting for some of those seats and the officer and senior enlisted tasked with supervising them.

navyDisp01.jpg

 

 

Large surface vessels are no longer a threat, and can be safely ignored.   Small speedboats and Exocet missiles are the current concerns.  There is no way a large vessel could get close enough to fire the great guns, let alone ram like the ancients.   Why would you bother to track them?

IMG_0174.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anecdote and thread drift:

I once took a bunch of soldiers (army types) on a tour of the CIC.  One young soldier says "Where do you go when they start shooting?".  I pointed to the chair.  

He replied:  "If you ain't dug in when the shootin' starts, you ain't safe."   

I suggested that soldiers should be discouraged from digging in too deep while on board.  

 

Share this post


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

Large surface vessels are no longer a threat, and can be safely ignored.   Small speedboats and Exocet missiles are the current concerns.  There is no way a large vessel could get close enough to fire the great guns, let alone ram like the ancients.   Why would you bother to track them?

IMG_0174.JPG

That must have been a committee of Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi advisors who determined "There is no way a large vessel could get close enough".  Same people recommended the paint and coatings program...

 

fitzgerald-3.jpg

Share this post


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

Large surface vessels are no longer a threat, and can be safely ignored.   Small speedboats and Exocet missiles are the current concerns.  There is no way a large vessel could get close enough to fire the great guns, let alone ram like the ancients.   Why would you bother to track them?

IMG_0174.JPG

Because large vessels can easily carry and launch small speedboats with Exocet missiles?!?

Unless made in jest, I don't believe your logic holds water...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tom P said:

Because large vessels can easily carry and launch small speedboats with Exocet missiles?!?

Unless made in jest, I don't believe your logic holds water...

Jest.   Just frustrated.   Day off before 14 on, so rain and no wind.  

Share this post


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

Jest.   Just frustrated.   Day off before 14 on, so rain and no wind.  

I hear ya, hope the 14 goes by quick and the no wind and rain continues but ends at the end of your shift -- no need working wishing you were sailing :-)

I do waaay too much of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tom P said:

I hear ya, hope the 14 goes by quick and the no wind and rain continues but ends at the end of your shift -- no need working wishing you were sailing :-)

I do waaay too much of that!

Thanks for the thoughts.   Got half an hour at steerage speed between lulls and rain.  Boat is as still as a house as I read.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear that as the Japanese have the vhf and radar tapes plus the VDR off the container ship hence the investigation was over in 5 minutes.

It will be kept very quite

Lucky the Container ship turned at the last minute as it might have cut that thing in half, the bulb went way in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is only the bit you can see in the photo.  I suspect the patch may extend further down the hull where the braces are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see the bulb underwater in this photo. Hole in Fitz reported to be 12x17.

3694.jpg?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's actually amazing that more sailors didn't peril.

 the water ingress must have been immense.

  you could drive a semi through that hole...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

it's actually amazing that more sailors didn't peril.

 the water ingress must have been immense.

  you could drive a semi through that hole...

 

Agreed. The bridge watch royally fucked up, but major kudos to the damage control team for saving the ship and countless lives. It could have been much much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen the photos, but it is quite hard to estimate the dimensions from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its  four 5X20 patches, so basically 20X20. The photo Koch posted with the guys in it gives perspective.  Amazing the crew kept it afloat.  My God.  Without warning... makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. 

Share this post


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

Its  four 5X20 patches, so basically 20X20. The photo Koch posted with the guys in it gives perspective.  Amazing the crew kept it afloat.  My God.  Without warning... makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. 

That is a testament to Navy DC Training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word. Can't say much for their navigation (either vessel) but as for Navy' damage control. Damn!! Amazing that so many got out of that space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two unnamed Defense officials.  How "official" is this?  Not saying it ain't going to prove out to be reliable, but it ain't exactly official either.  Are these "preliminary findings" in writing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't expect a public cover up. I guess if the issue were in doubt and a lawsuits could be avoided or contested-maybe not. But this isn't going to get swept under the rug and FOIA will  prevail, especially when attorneys representing the various injured parties and families get involved. Can't happen. No way. I think the Navy is smart enough to recognize that coming clean is in its own best long term interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The collision victims and their families from Fitzgerald may end up downplaying Fitzgerald's faults, and play up any faults of the containership, for tactical reasons.  The US is immune from lawsuits by its active-duty sailors (and soldiers) under the so-called "Feres doctrine".   the containership, though, is not immune, and motives come into play in determining trial strategy and relative fault.

It wouldn't be unusual in such a situation, for the government investigations and findings to be more balanced and objective than those of a civil lawsuit, since in the latter, only one of the two vessels would be a viable defendant for the plaintiffs.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Sure looks like CIC was obviously -and egregiously- distracted, and perhaps a poor working relationship between CIC and the bridge existed as well.

(this from a long time CIC Watch Supervisor and OI Division LPO....but still IMHO)

Those were significant factors in the Belknap/Kennedy collision in Nov. 1975 (went to ASAC school with an OS who was on watch aboard the Belknap that nasty night):

http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS KENNEDY AND BELKNAP 75 PT 1.pdf

 

USS+Belknap+11.jpg

 

USS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg

 

Time to hammer this Home (Again)...

13363222553_73fcf0235a_b.jpg

 

Share this post


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

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-idUSKBN1A62FX

wow, just weren't looking, what were they doing instead? Video games, texting? for how long?

No dissapectte, butte I reade the destroyner wase inncapassitated by some ellectronicalle warfare mesherre carridde on the freihte ship, if so howe cane they bee nat faultte?

Share this post


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

No dissapectte, butte I reade the destroyner wase inncapassitated by some ellectronicalle warfare mesherre carridde on the freihte ship, if so howe cane they bee nat faultte?

Incapacitate multiple, independent, radar systems???

Hadn't read that anywhere....

Would call BS as that would mean a whole bunch of power across a pretty wide spectrum, and the systems on the Fitz are built to operate in a dense hostile EW environment.

And if active measures were employed by the Merchant, in these post-Cole days,  should've drawn immediate attention.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Incapacitate multiple, independent, radar systems???

Hadn't read that anywhere....

Would call BS as that would mean a whole bunch of power across a pretty wide spectrum, and the systems on the Fitz are built to operate in a dense hostile EW environment.

And if active measures were employed by the Merchant, in these post-Cole days,  should've drawn immediate attention.

Alle goode pointtes, so USN nevere goig to admitte that happend.  Att his pointe, alle specullationes you no.  Cheeres

:)

Share this post


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

Alle goode pointtes, so USN nevere goig to admitte that happend.  Att his pointe, alle specullationes you no.  Cheeres

:)

From what I know, based on a couple decades of experience in that business aboard grey "small boys", the idea the ACX Crystal carried some kind of electronics suite that could "blind" the Fitz is entirely implausible...

More likely there was a culture aboard where the Combat Information Center was not adequately supporting the bridge in a complex nighttime shipping environment where, for whatever reason, the Fitz was bucking the normal flow of traffic...

The "Why's" for that are rich grist for speculation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no direct experience on a navy ship but if a plane gets an alert when it is painted or active countermeasures employed then would expect the same on navy ship. If some kind d of GPS spoofing then radars jammed also should have created a ruckus. It's all so implausible, even the idea that 6-10 sailors failed.to pick up a trace prior. Just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bunch of nonsense. The raw power required to overwhelm an AEGIS system would require so much power the freighter would be painting huge em disruption throughout the area. 

 

The crew fucked up. Stop trying to cover up for crew failures. All freighters in Japanese waters are required to have AIS.  

Even if AIS was inaccurate with less than optimal GPS location accuracy, DDG has all the tools it needs to adhere to COL REG as well as avoid collision. Including a fucking watch crew with mark 1 eyeballs. 

Share this post


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

What drag setting you using Snags?

Bet Snags would look pretty funny in drag, no matter the setting...

NTTIAWWT.

c1dbd64fcf15ecd4b0a344ba9f4b14c3--san-di

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the USN is going to put its hand up and accept that it was responsible and stop trying to shift the blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gissie said:

What drag setting you using Snags?

I think he is using real light tackle and hardly any drag. You let the fish work the bait until the hook is just right and add just a few pounds..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 4:45 PM, sidmon said:

Sure looks like CIC was obviously -and egregiously- distracted, and perhaps a poor working relationship between CIC and the bridge existed as well.

(this from a long time CIC Watch Supervisor and OI Division LPO....but still IMHO)

Those were significant factors in the Belknap/Kennedy collision in Nov. 1975 (went to ASAC school with an OS who was on watch aboard the Belknap that nasty night):

http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS KENNEDY AND BELKNAP 75 PT 1.pdf

 

USS+Belknap+11.jpg

 

USS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg

 

Time to hammer this Home (Again)...

13363222553_73fcf0235a_b.jpg

 

Bridge to CIC - See any traffic?

CIC to Bridge - Are we in combat tonight?

Bridge to CIC - No...

CIC to Bridge - Seeing as this is the Combat Information Center, quit calling us or we will block your number.

Share this post


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

Surely the USN is going to put its hand up and accept that it was responsible and stop trying to shift the blame.

If this is sarcasm, I'd like to point out that the USN has taken responsibility for groundings and collisions that its review board carefully examined. USN is not a bunch of bozos dredging and building shit in the south ChinaSea . 

I get that hating Yanks is cool again. We own that for having a dumbass in office.

But the USN and USCG has done more to advance free navigation of the seas than most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 8:25 PM, sidmon said:

From what I know, based on a couple decades of experience in that business aboard grey "small boys", the idea the ACX Crystal carried some kind of electronics suite that could "blind" the Fitz is entirely implausible...

Yep, just as plausible to blame it on a UFO

More likely there was a culture aboard where the Combat Information Center was not adequately supporting the bridge in a complex nighttime shipping environment where, for whatever reason, the Fitz was bucking the normal flow of traffic...

The "Why's" for that are rich grist for speculation.

 

Yep again. I spent some time on the bridge but very little in CIC, while I had some OS type friends some of them can be real assholes (as can engineer types, to be fair). I can see personality conflicts degrading the working relationship to the point where stuff like this can happen

 

1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Bridge to CIC - See any traffic?

CIC to Bridge - Are we in combat tonight?

Bridge to CIC - No...

CIC to Bridge - Seeing as this is the Combat Information Center, quit calling us or we will block your number.

Not as funny as you might think

:huh:

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Yep again. I spent some time on the bridge but very little in CIC, while I had some OS type friends some of them can be real assholes (as can engineer types, to be fair). I can see personality conflicts degrading the working relationship to the point where stuff like this can happen

 

Not as funny as you might think

:huh:

FB- Doug

I actually was thinking it was something like CIC sees no potential enemies and thinks commercial/recreational boats are something the bridge watches out for and the bridge is slacking thinking CIC will surely warn them if anyone is around.
No idea if that is actually plausible.

Share this post


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

I actually was thinking it was something like CIC sees no potential enemies and thinks commercial/recreational boats are something the bridge watches out for and the bridge is slacking thinking CIC will surely warn them if anyone is around.
No idea if that is actually plausible.

As I understand it, CIC is supposed to identify & track potential THREATS, which definitely include big-ass cargo ships bearing down on you.

But I knew of some colossal fuck-ups in all manner of operations, many of which stem from the pig-headedness of individuals involved. For example, and engineering one: the ship I was on sank at the dock (a few months after I left). The CHENG who was an ignorant and abrasive twit, ordered the senior chief of the engine room to open up the main condenser for routine maintenance NOW, so he requested that order in writing and then did so (after ordering everybody except himself and the MM1 out, and getting a pair of lifejackets).

I could give you a long list of similar "accidents" which only prove the Navy should have adult supervision. I'm sure it's similar in other branches too.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 3:45 PM, sidmon said:

Sure looks like CIC was obviously -and egregiously- distracted, and perhaps a poor working relationship between CIC and the bridge existed as well.

(this from a long time CIC Watch Supervisor and OI Division LPO....but still IMHO)

Those were significant factors in the Belknap/Kennedy collision in Nov. 1975 (went to ASAC school with an OS who was on watch aboard the Belknap that nasty night):

http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS KENNEDY AND BELKNAP 75 PT 1.pdf

 

USS+Belknap+11.jpg

 

USS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg

 

Time to hammer this Home (Again)...

13363222553_73fcf0235a_b.jpg

 

I'd heard of this collision and the awful loss of life and damage.  "Figure 1" in the JAG investigation helped me see what happened.   Seems as though Belknap bridge crew saw the carrier the whole time, but misinterpreted carrier's movements and steamed into collision, with last-second hard starboard not quite enough to avoid it.  Almost like "too much informaton".

We'll know details later, but it seems the FITZ may have been unaware of CRYSTAL, for reasons we will hear about eventually.  "Too little information", or "failure to see the very big containership".  Or maybe they did see her, but misjudged the situation and CPA?   We're speculating.   Eventually we will know.

 

Share this post


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

I'd heard of this collision and the awful loss of life and damage.  "Figure 1" in the JAG investigation helped me see what happened.   Seems as though Belknap bridge crew saw the carrier the whole time, but misinterpreted carrier's movements and steamed into collision, with last-second hard starboard not quite enough to avoid it.  Almost like "too much informaton".

We'll know details later, but it seems the FITZ may have been unaware of CRYSTAL, for reasons we will hear about eventually.  "Too little information", or "failure to see the very big containership".  Or maybe they did see her, but misjudged the situation and CPA?   We're speculating.   Eventually we will know.

 

Ditto. 

I'll say one thing about navy warships around the world. Anything like a destroyer and smaller are piloted by young ppl and trained to be way too aggressive in routine maneuvers. 

I've seen so many warships 1) obviously aware of other traffic, but choose to 2) make it a training session with aggressive way too delayed maneuvers that scares the shit out of everyone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 7:25 PM, sidmon said:

More likely there was a culture aboard where the Combat Information Center was not adequately supporting the bridge in a complex nighttime shipping environment where, for whatever reason, the Fitz was bucking the normal flow of traffic...

The "Why's" for that are rich grist for speculation.

 

 

I believe a lot of CIC systems are regularly taken down at night to load/update software...Or so I'm told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Navy has assigned the blame to the Fitz in the preliminary investigation results.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/07/21/investigation-faults-navy-fitzgerald-collision-report.html?ESRC=army_170725.nl

From the article:

"The report, which cited two unnamed Navy officials, said investigators have found the Fitzgerald's crew committed "multiple errors," including failure to acknowledge and act on the approach of the ACX Crystal, the Philippine cargo ship that would hit the Fitzgerald's starboard side in the early hours of June 17."

Share this post


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

I believe a lot of CIC systems are regularly taken down at night to load/update software...Or so I'm told.

 

    well that makes sense....night time...Bad Guys sleeping...and CIC has called it quits for the day cause...welll.... the bad guys are sleeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, soak_ed said:

The US Navy has assigned the blame to the Fitz in the preliminary investigation results.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/07/21/investigation-faults-navy-fitzgerald-collision-report.html?ESRC=army_170725.nl

From the article:

"The report, which cited two unnamed Navy officials, said investigators have found the Fitzgerald's crew committed "multiple errors," including failure to acknowledge and act on the approach of the ACX Crystal, the Philippine cargo ship that would hit the Fitzgerald's starboard side in the early hours of June 17."

This is only something two unnamed USN officials said. Also they say nothing about the courses of the two ships involved and which of them was the stand on vessel. It has been clear from the beginning that the Fitz will be blamed. Even if the ACX had tried to ram into it the Fitz should have easily avoided the collision. They are not saying that the collision was caused by the Fitz.

The CNN article has an interesting sentence " The officials say investigators are also looking at the possibility that the ship was traveling at a higher speed than expected ". Don't they yet know the speeds and courses of the both vessels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Joakim said:

This is only something two unnamed USN officials said. Also they say nothing about the courses of the two ships involved and which of them was the stand on vessel. It has been clear from the beginning that the Fitz will be blamed. Even if the ACX had tried to ram into it the Fitz should have easily avoided the collision. They are not saying that the collision was caused by the Fitz.

. Don't they yet know the speeds and courses of the both vessels?

 

   Umm   COLREGS 101 here......    Fitz was nailed on starboard...   ACX took it to port.   (not to mention that ACX is also considered "stand on" based on "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" )......         Now I dont know what goes on in Finland....but in most places thats two reasons Fitz was obviously at fault (unless you think the tanker deviated course suddenly - pulling a 40minute hard turn to port that stymied the Fitz crew into inaction.)

Share this post


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

 

   Umm   COLREGS 101 here......    Fitz was nailed on starboard...   ACX took it to port.   (not to mention that ACX is also considered "stand on" based on "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" )......         Now I dont know what goes on in Finland....but in most places thats two reasons Fitz was obviously at fault (unless you think the tanker deviated course suddenly - pulling a 40minute hard turn to port that stymied the Fitz crew into inaction.)

We don't yet know was this a starboard port situation, overtaking (who was the one overtaking?) or did one of the vessels make some course or speed changes just before the collision. The overtaking sector is quite wide and there may have been a course change just before the collision so we can't say just based on the damage who was the one who should have given way.

The ACX was not restricted in her ablitity to manouevre in the sense of colregs. What makes you thin it was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACX was 40,000t and 225m long compared to Fitz 9,000t and 150m length....which is the sports car and which is the train?  

 

Fitz was clearly nailed on starboard.....ACX on port...how much clearer does it need to be ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You do realise they were "allegedly" in a T.S.S. not in some harbour, or river or channel where one or BOTH of these vessels could be "Restricted in ability to manoeuvre" The fact that ACX was able to complete various turns after the crash shows that she had plenty of ability to manoeuvre.

The size of the vessel is not important when it comes down to right of way, we should wait for the FACTS to be released, and THEN jump to conclusions.

Your description of the accident seems to suggest that the boats were on opposite tacks.... Do you know which one had luffing rights?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kingstonsail said:

ACX was 40,000t and 225m long compared to Fitz 9,000t and 150m length....which is the sports car and which is the train?  

 

Fitz was clearly nailed on starboard.....ACX on port...how much clearer does it need to be ?

"Restricted" in COLREGS has a specific legal meaning that did NOT apply to either vessel here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

"Restricted" in COLREGS has a specific legal meaning that did NOT apply to either vessel here.

 

And you know this how?  

Share this post


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

And you know this how?  

Because I have read the COLREGS? :rolleyes:

If one of these ships was towing minesweeping gear, dredging, missing a rudder, or otherwise COLREGS restricted, this information has not been revealed to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kingstonsail said:

ACX was 40,000t and 225m long compared to Fitz 9,000t and 150m length....which is the sports car and which is the train?  

 

Fitz was clearly nailed on starboard.....ACX on port...how much clearer does it need to be ?

Yabbut they didn't hail "Mast Abeam"

:o

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading is not comprehension.  The navigation status of large merchant vessels on the high seas are well known to the public as is the responsibility to avoid collision when you are aware one is imminent.  That puts Fitzgerald behind the eight ball, but make your case.