• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Bruno

Tanker hits Destoyer, how is this possible?

Recommended Posts

From photos of damage to Destroyer it appears the tanker was the stand on vessel. Hard to believe with ARPA, ECDIS and a full watch on each vessel that something like this could happen.  Sometimes "ya can't fix stupid" as each thought the other would give way.

That Navy Captain will be lucky to drive a desk after this, his career is finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the destroyer's damage on the starboard side, there's a pretty high likelyhood of them being at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake, container ship described as 3x of Burke class, was on a very straight track at 18 k, then hard right turn to avoid probably reduced damage. Just not sure how watch keepers and radar failed to observe approach, not to mention AIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, the first was due to a chart inaccuracy of 8 m, the latter two to lax watch keeping in narrow seas, one at periscope depth. This seems a bit different, though we've all seen and made our share of mistakes out there. There are just so many redundancies on the Burke class alone, never mind the container ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bridge watch has 4-6 people and then who ever is in CiC.  No one saw this coming?!!?  At 0230 you are at the low point of reaction times and I am sure there was a fair amount of complacency but .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 10 people will have their ass handed to them.  Who knows if the Captain was even on the bridge, doesn't matter.  He's responsible.  A good guy could be going down...we don't know.  Somebody sure fucked up...but who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary purpose of COLREGS is to prevent collisions at sea.  Although the rules do provide that one vessel shall be the "stand on" vessel and the other the "give way" vessel, that only pertains until it becomes clear that the stand on vessel is not taking appropriate measures to avoid and at that time the give way vessel must take immediate action to prevent a collision.

Having stood countless hours standing watch as the OOD on Navy ships and the Watch Officer on merchant ships I can tell you that there were many times I had to maneuver to avoid even though we were the stand on vessel.

There just isn't any justification for an accident like this to occur.  Even equipment failures don't relieve either party of their responsibility to avoid a collision.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, unknown said:

The Bridge watch has 4-6 people and then who ever is in CiC.  No one saw this coming?!!?  At 0230 you are at the low point of reaction times and I am sure there was a fair amount of complacency but .... 

Don't forget the lookouts.  Navy ships of this class usually have 2 lookouts (one forward and one aft).  Merchant ships are required to have at least one lookout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, klkirkman@aol.com said:

When actual facts finally are found, a much different picture may emerge.  Damage to port side of container ship may mean overtaking, and note vessels may have been in a traffic control system .

True.  Latest on the radio was that the container ship did a u-turn less than 30 minutes before the collision occurred and the location where they collided was 50 miles offshore.  I hope the incident report for this accident is made public so we might all learn from this tragic mishap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Morgan Crewed said:

AIS Tracking of ACX Crystal.  Guess where and when it happened.59451e5f12396_ACXCrystal.JPG.f3fa0b65cee07f5311cdc3160ef24856.JPG59451e7265dea_ACXCrystalTimeline.JPG.6975273ee4a05bd2bff2012496b1f5b0.JPG

Autopilot failure? 

Share this post


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

From photos of damage to Destroyer it appears the tanker was the stand on vessel. Hard to believe with ARPA, ECDIS and a full watch on each vessel that something like this could happen.  Sometimes "ya can't fix stupid" as each thought the other would give way.

That Navy Captain will be lucky to drive a desk after this, his career is finished.

Yes, it is. Whether it was his fault or not, the Captain is responsible. Since he was reported as injured, I suspect he was on the bridge and probably out on the bridge wing when it happened.

It's dark, looks like the container ship was driving around erratically, and you'd be amazed how quickly those last few hundred yards of seperation evaporate when ships are coming together. It's easily possible to have both ships attempt to avoid only to put each other firmly in the cone of 'cannot avoid' at the last minute. The situation goes from "It's OK"  to "it's kinda close" to "full reverse" to "holy F&&& hang on" just about that quick.

I hope the 7 missing sailors are found OK

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

AIS Tracking of ACX Crystal.  Guess where and when it happened.59451e5f12396_ACXCrystal.JPG.f3fa0b65cee07f5311cdc3160ef24856.JPG59451e7265dea_ACXCrystalTimeline.JPG.6975273ee4a05bd2bff2012496b1f5b0.JPG

"We had to swerve several times, before we hit them!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have added another Point - call it 7.1 as the first dot after Point 7.

Speed was 3.8, Heading was 85* and UTC was 19:01 or about 25 minutes after Point 7.

Share this post


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

Containership, not a tanker.

Yes.  Many photos: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4612334/USS-Fitzgerald-involved-collision-merchant-vessel.html

417B789C00000578-4612334-image-a-28_1497663337556.jpg.4a51cbc6c6f736757aa3808b34fd3eed.jpg

417F0AF000000578-4612334-image-a-11_1497708031094.jpg.d05e69ebb4805151049d82ee34924fe9.jpg

Quote

The ACX Crystal's course shows that it performed a rapid U-turn at speed and then turned to head back to Tokyo - at which point it collided with the USS Fitzgerald

417B580F00000578-4612334-The_7th_Fleet_revealed_that_the_ship_is_proceeding_back_to_her_h-a-18_1497663060952.jpg.7e5937828c190a25b12efd231c9a2fbb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 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.

Yes, Japan time zone is UTC+9. Reported that the collision occurred at 2:30 local time, which is 1730 UTC. That would be 10 min before position 5.  Slow speed and course changes at 6 and 7 may reflect the ship standing by at collision scene. After 7 ship resumes its original course. No idea why the 180 prior to collision.

Share this post


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

Btw, the first was due to a chart inaccuracy of 8 m, the latter two to lax watch keeping in narrow seas, one at periscope depth. This seems a bit different, though we've all seen and made our share of mistakes out there. There are just so many redundancies on the Burke class alone, never mind the container ship.

 

It was a fucking minesweeper. The kind of high tech military ship that finds shit under the water. It had shitloads of redundancy, alarms where screaming for hours before they hit the mountain.  From the oficial investigaion into the grounding:

Quote

Causation: This tragic mishap was wholly preventable and was the product of poor voyage planning, poor execution, and unfortunate circumstances. This investigation uncovers no single point of failure; instead, there were numerous links in the error chain leading up to the grounding. Had any one of which been appropriately addressed, the grounding would have been prevented. USS GUARDIAN leadership and watch teams failed to adhere to prudent, safe, and sound navigation principles which would have alerted them to approaching dangers with sufficient time to take mitigating action. The watch team's observations of visual cues in the hours leading up to the grounding, combined with electronic cues and alarms, should have triggered immediate steps to resolve warnings and reconcile discrepancies. Further, notwithstanding multiple, readily-available sources of accurate information, the leadership and watch teams relied primarily on an inaccurate Digital Nautical Chart (DNC)® coastal chart during planning and execution of the navigation plan. Finally, USS GUARDIAN leadership failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the watch teams were knowledgeable and proficient, and failed to recognize that key personnel transfers within the navigation team had degraded USS GUARDIAN's navigation capability to an unacceptable level. Ultimately, the lack of leadership led to increased navigational risk to the ship and her crew.

(...)

The root causes of the grounding were human error and a failure of command leadership to provide the necessary oversight and direction in developing a prudent and safe Navigation Plan. In execution, the command leadership failed to provide the most basic direction, guidance, and supervision to ensure the safe navigation of the  ship as it transited one of the most complex navigation environments in the Western Pacific.

 

Same for the other two: a major clusterfuck caused by incompetent leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Radar would have displayed a large ship making erratic course changes. That should have raised enough of a red flag for the destroyer to give it a wide berth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the skipper was injured while in his cabin....  it might be reasonable to assume that the bridge watch never called him!  (Not an excuse, because then it means he didn't train them correctly).  Getting mashed in one's cabin may also mean that the collision alarm was either not sounded at all or far too late.

Share this post


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

I think you meant to type;  "Godzilla Shits on Destoroyah" 

i JUST SPURT FOOD!

 

 

 

No mention of the commercial skipper with a chip on his shoulder towards the US ? Like the old lighthouse joke?

There will be some memes over this. Needless deaths for these families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend

There was a dense summer fog and the officer on the bridge was becoming more and more exasperated. As he leaned over the side of the bridge trying to pierce the gloom, he saw a hazy figure leaning on a rail a few yards from his ship.

He almost choked.

"What do you think you're doing with your blinking ship?" he roared. "Don't you know the rules of the sea?

"This ain't no blinkin' ship, guv'nor," said a quiet voice; "this 'ere's a light'ouse!"

Share this post


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

 No idea why the 180 prior to collision.

Someone with experience in that part of the world said on gCaptain that it is not unusual for large ships that are ahead of schedule for pilot pickup to circle rather than heave to.

Cheers,

Earl

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the article posted on the fp. Says that the merchant ship was traveling 18.5 knots heading 068.   Just prior to collision.  And then hung a hard starboard.  

If the destroyer was traveling due south could the collision have created enough force to alter the course of the merchant vessel so dramatically to starboard...

destroyer would obviously be more manuverable and one would expect the destroyer to have more lookouts and technology.   But I always leaned the that vessel to your right was the stand on vessel  unless local conditions/rules altered that....

hope all the sailors are found....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports on the late news are that the missing sailors have been found.  Onboard the destroyer and all are deceased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2017 at 8:20 PM, Mark K said:

You really believe the Baby Jesus put all our oil under those guys on a whim?? How does that jibe with His Decision to create a new Zion in Utah? Another goof?  

 

14 hours ago, Earl Boebert said:

Someone with experience in that part of the world said on gCaptain that it is not unusual for large ships that are ahead of schedule for pilot pickup to circle rather than heave to.

Cheers,

Earl

 

The way it's looking this morning is that someone on the cargo ship may have maneuvered to deliberately ram the destroyer.I'm hoping they've kept track of the crew on the container ship.

 

Share this post


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

 

The way it's looking this morning is that someone on the cargo ship may have maneuvered to deliberately ram the destroyer.I'm hoping they've kept track of the crew on the container ship.

 

I don't think that that lets the destroyer bridge crew off the hook. If they were awake they could/should/would have taken avoiding action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get the sequence of actions or inactions required for this to happen. Even taking into consideration the gross negligence and bad seamanship detailed in some of the other incidents above (which are amazing), I am struggling to understand how a destroyer gets in this situation. Yes, the freighter may have been circling for a pilot, yes, the bridge watch may have been distracted, but there are supposed to be so many redundancies in a 300 man crewed Aegis destroyer that I just don't get it. If I was the Navy I would be making some changes rather than covering things up, but I'm not.

Share this post


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

I don't think that that lets the destroyer bridge crew off the hook. If they were awake they could/should/would have taken avoiding action. 

I'm inclined to agree. The destroyer is much more manuverable and has top speed about double the container ship. If the bridge crew was alert they could have altered course and speed and avoided a lumbering container ship. 

Share this post


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

I just don't get the sequence of actions or inactions required for this to happen. Even taking into consideration the gross negligence and bad seamanship detailed in some of the other incidents above (which are amazing), I am struggling to understand how a destroyer gets in this situation. Yes, the freighter may have been circling for a pilot, yes, the bridge watch may have been distracted, but there are supposed to be so many redundancies in a 300 man crewed Aegis destroyer that I just don't get it. If I was the Navy I would be making some changes rather than covering things up, but I'm not.

There may or may not be an eventual coverup, but I think right now the Navy is still figuring out exactly what happened. Since Japanese CG and other agencies are involved, I think a coverup would be difficult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am suggesting is that the first encounter with the destroyer told the container ship driver how close he could approach the destroyer without being fired upon, whereupon he pulled a quick U turn , sped up and rammer the destroyer on purpose.

Think lone wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4ktsb. Report are saying that the  collision occurredwhile the merchant was sailing 068 at 18 knots   Which would put them at position #1 based on Morgan's post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I was thinking until I watched GMA this morning, where they claimed the collision occurred at 5 or 6 after the U turn. I'll be interested to see what the USN has to say.

Share this post


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

I don't think that that lets the destroyer bridge crew off the hook. If they were awake they could/should/would have taken avoiding action. 

I disagree....if the bridge deck was on normal watch....and this ,if true abrupt ramming, was the case, ...I am not going to second guess the chain of events looking to hang someone~~~~~~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might take 2 minutes for the container ship to execute a 90deg turn. If they were nearby the destroyer, then the bridge/radar should have been aware in 15-30 seconds the ship was turning towards them....if that's what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both crews will get nailed for failing to maintain a proper lookout, both crews will get nailed for loss of situational awareness.   Lives lost, many careers ended.  The Officer of the Deck will likely be court marshaled and jailed in the navy brig from some time.  The list of losers will be very long.

Share this post


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

Exactly what I was thinking until I watched GMA this morning, where they claimed the collision occurred at 5 or 6 after the U turn. I'll be interested to see what the USN has to say.

Did not see that.  Thanks for the heads up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The container ship people said the collision occurred at 1:30, which is point one.  They claim the u-turn was after the collision.  That makes sense.

USN says collision occured at 2:30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Whisper said:

The container ship people said the collision occurred at 1:30, which is point one.  They claim the u-turn was after the collision.  That makes sense.

USN says collision occured at 2:30.

Had they corrected their bridge clocks for summer time?  Something awry here.

Track looks like collision at point 1, then rapid turn to stbd, and a loop back to check for casualties, which would be the seaman's way of doing it.  

But facts will out.

Share this post


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

The container ship people said the collision occurred at 1:30, which is point one.  They claim the u-turn was after the collision.  That makes sense.

USN says collision occured at 2:30.

The track reflects everything that might have gone after a collision at point 1. Normal speed, then change of course after collision, then a reduction in speed, then a turn to standby other damaged vessel.

News reports will be the last to get the facts straight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? After colliding with a US navy vessel you continue on for more than a half an hour before turning around to arrive and render assistance more than a hour later? Much more likely it happened somewhere around 5. 

The situation makes me wonder if the container vessel had the AIS comic book alarm set as their primary watch, and didn't see the ship without it on.

Share this post


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

Really? After colliding with a US navy vessel you continue on for more than a half an hour before turning around to arrive and render assistance more than a hour later? Much more likely it happened somewhere around 5. 

The situation makes me wonder if the container vessel had the AIS comic book alarm set as their primary watch, and didn't see the ship without it on.

If I understand correctly, the container ship doesn't have engine room people on permanent duty...it may have taken that long to get engineers on duty and switch the motor over to a different fuel for maneuvering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

News reports still sticking to U Turn happening before collision. Destroyer pretty lucky not to have sunk with damage it got below waterline.

Japanese news says u-turn happened after collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the destroyer was somehow dead in the water there is no way for a lumbering container ship to tag it. Huge power, sensing and maneuverability advantages. No matter the outcome the bumbling idiocy of the Navy command is on full display....yet again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you  guys get your conspiracies from, Infowars?

It is highly likely the box boat didnt even feel to much of a bump, its three times the tonnage after all. However once they were aware something happened the time it takes for a freighter to execute a turn and runs through a procedural checklist seems about right. The thing is US naval vessels on patrol dont advertise their presence, this is a major cock up on the part of the watch captain on the US ship. No excuses for a modern warship loaded with the latest electronics to not see and give a wide berth to a merchant vessel. Finally its dented on the starboard side so the US will lose the protest and have top pay for the damage to the box boat.

Expect demotions and court martials, those poor sailors died for no reason except incompetence

Share this post


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

Where do you  guys get your conspiracies from, Infowars?

It is highly likely the box boat didnt even feel to much of a bump, its three times the tonnage after all. However once they were aware something happened the time it takes for a freighter to execute a turn and runs through a procedural checklist seems about right. The thing is US naval vessels on patrol dont advertise their presence, this is a major cock up on the part of the watch captain on the US ship. No excuses for a modern warship loaded with the latest electronics to not see and give a wide berth to a merchant vessel. Finally its dented on the starboard side so the US will lose the protest and have top pay for the damage to the box boat.

Expect demotions and court martials, those poor sailors died for no reason except incompetence

Do we know the course of the USN boat?  Someone above mentioned the containership bow damage is also consistent with an overtaking.  That's a possibility.  Otherwise, I agree with your assessment.

On the otherhand, this is so bizarre that the lone wolf theory might be plausible.  There's an hour discrepency between the reported timing of the collision.  If the USN is correct, then that U-turn is highly suspect depending on the destroyer's course.

If we knew the Navy course, this is an easy reconstruction.

 

Share this post


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

Unless the destroyer was somehow dead in the water there is no way for a lumbering container ship to tag it. Huge power, sensing and maneuverability advantages. No matter the outcome the bumbling idiocy of the Navy command is on full display....yet again. 

 WTF is the Navy Command? 

Share this post


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

Do we know the course of the USN boat?  Someone above mentioned the containership bow damage is also consistent with an overtaking.  That's a possibility.  Otherwise, I agree with your assessment.

On the otherhand, this is so bizarre that the lone wolf theory might be plausible.  There's an hour discrepency between the reported timing of the collision.  If the USN is correct, then that U-turn is highly suspect depending on the destroyer's course.

If we knew the Navy course, this is an easy reconstruction.

 

You won't know the Fitz's track for a while, Navy doesn't broadcast AIS. There will be an in depth investigation, and it will almost certainly be made public. As all of the other accidents were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage to the container vessel is also consistent with a last moment right turn to try avoid/lessen damage.

Too many theories.  We should wait for the facts (me included).

Share this post


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

What I am suggesting is that the first encounter with the destroyer told the container ship driver how close he could approach the destroyer without being fired upon, whereupon he pulled a quick U turn , sped up and rammer the destroyer on purpose.

Think lone wolf.

Its like you trying to tag a moth with your 4knsb.

 

 

Share this post


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

If I understand correctly, the container ship doesn't have engine room people on permanent duty...it may have taken that long to get engineers on duty and switch the motor over to a different fuel for maneuvering.

Bridge has control of engines in an unmanned engine room.  It only take a few minutes to get engineers in the space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, DDW said:

Really? After colliding with a US navy vessel you continue on for more than a half an hour before turning around to arrive and render assistance more than a hour later? Much more likely it happened somewhere around 5. 

The situation makes me wonder if the container vessel had the AIS comic book alarm set as their primary watch, and didn't see the ship without it on.

Yes! The crew of a container ship in the hours just after midnight suddenly are required to manouver a large cumbersome ship with poor visibility doing 18 knots in a shipping lane. This would not be for the faint hearted and could of itself create a collision.

It's the destroyer that is fully manned and highly maneuverable vessel. They routinely do not display lights at night. I've experienced this where my VHF call has only brought the reply that they have us on radar and but do not give us information on their own course or speed. Very unsettling when you get an image on radar but can't see them or determine whether we are on a collision course or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never thought about it before, but I had assumed warships transmitted AIS during peace time. One of the options on mine is to tick aircraft carrier rather than yacht for type of vessel, I have thought this would provide a certain degree of comfort when at sea.  I wonder how much container ship crews have come to rely on AIS now such that the lookout if any would be pretty perfunctory.

Share this post


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

Never thought about it before, but I had assumed warships transmitted AIS during peace time. One of the options on mine is to tick aircraft carrier rather than yacht for type of vessel, I have thought this would provide a certain degree of comfort when at sea.  I wonder how much container ship crews have come to rely on AIS now such that the lookout if any would be pretty perfunctory.

I came across one of those Spanish built $750m white elephants off Jervis Bay. Unlit, no AIS and no lights. Just a big target on the radar which we couldn't otherwise see even though it was only a few miles off. It was quite spooky and meant that they were taking more of the responsibility for avoiding a collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Trickypig said:

I came across one of those Spanish built $750m white elephants off Jervis Bay. Unlit, no AIS and no lights. Just a big target on the radar which we couldn't otherwise see even though it was only a few miles off. It was quite spooky and meant that they were taking more of the responsibility for avoiding a collision.

I would think that if a warship was operating in a shipping lane without lights and AIS switched off, they'd bear a significant amount of blame in the event of a collision. It's foolishness that amounts to recklessness, imo. IDK if that's the case here....I hope not.

Share this post


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

Never thought about it before, but I had assumed warships transmitted AIS during peace time.

(...)

Doesn't the US military consider themselves to be in a semi-permanent state of war since they launched the whole GWOT thing years ago?

Just look at some of the comments suspecting the container ship of deliberately ramming the USN ship (not saying categorically that that didn't happen, just that that scenario is VERY unlikely for reasons already stated above) - with that kind of thinking, it's easy to justify cloaking the vessel (no AIS, no lights) in the middle of a busy shipping area.

IF you then fail to keep a proper lookout and take avoiding action when needed, it's hard to blame anyone else but yourself.

Share this post


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

 WTF is the Navy Command? 

Noun: 12. d. The ship's crew under a commander. The brown nosed morons whose only talent is pleasing their superior. People who, if they had any scruples at all, would be not USN but USMC or even USAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been in the shoes of the containership mate on watch on more than one occasion, my mantra when dealing with the US Navy has been "stay away from the gray."

This being said the container ship mate should have been tracking the fitz the whole time and hailing the target that he was seeing on the radar on the radio.

My guess is that the collision occurred at position 2. He had recognized what was going on, called his captain and went hard right as per COLREGS. If my gut is right, he hit the navy ship somewhere in the arc of his turn which would explain the damage being isolated to his port bow. 

The speed drop you are seeing is due to the turn. Any large slow speed diesel is run by a computer and loading the plant up or down takes awhile, usually 20-30min.  If you bypass the limits on the computer there is a good chance you will lose the plant and compound your problems.

Also AIS is not supposed to be used for collision avoidance. Don't get me wrong, it is a useful tool, but RADAR and ARPA in conjunction with AIS interfacing is used. If AIS drops out it is no big deal, you are still plotting the target with the radar.

We may never hear the navy's recording but I have a feeling the VDR from the containership will go a long way towards vindicating the mate on watch. 

If I had to guess they will try and get the containership mate on failure to maintain a proper lookout. The navy crew will go down hard with the cause of the collision being attributed to loss of situational awareness, lack of training and incompetence.

Share this post


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

I would think that if a warship was operating in a shipping lane without lights and AIS switched off, they'd bear a significant amount of blame in the event of a collision. It's foolishness that amounts to recklessness, imo. IDK if that's the case here....I hope not.

We discussed it as a crew. We were in an exercise area which should have been a clue....  We were inshore of the shipping lane so only trawlers and recreational craft were an issue for them.

It was interesting that we found it hard to work it all out at night time. Was it a trawler with no lights? Was it a larger ship in distress? What was its course and speed?... that was not obvious on our older radar. Only a VHF call solved the mystery.

Had I been on my 4knt shitbox I would have been blissfully unaware.

Share this post


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

Having been in the shoes of the containership mate on watch on more than one occasion, my mantra when dealing with the US Navy has been "stay away from the gray."

This being said the container ship mate should have been tracking the fitz the whole time and hailing the target that he was seeing on the radar on the radio.

My guess is that the collision occurred at position 2. He had recognized what was going on, called his captain and went hard right as per COLREGS. If my gut is right, he hit the navy ship somewhere in the arc of his turn which would explain the damage being isolated to his port bow. 

The speed drop you are seeing is due to the turn. Any large slow speed diesel is run by a computer and loading the plant up or down takes awhile, usually 20-30min.  If you bypass the limits on the computer there is a good chance you will lose the plant and compound your problems.

Also AIS is not supposed to be used for collision avoidance. Don't get me wrong, it is a useful tool, but RADAR and ARPA in conjunction with AIS interfacing is used. If AIS drops out it is no big deal, you are still plotting the target with the radar.

We may never hear the navy's recording but I have a feeling the VDR from the containership will go a long way towards vindicating the mate on watch. 

If I had to guess they will try and get the containership mate on failure to maintain a proper lookout. The navy crew will go down hard with the cause of the collision being attributed to loss of situational awareness, lack of training and incompetence.

That's my take.

Conspiracy theories are necessary to make any other explanation of the track workable.

Fox news will do their best, no doubt.

Share this post


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

Noun: 12. d. The ship's crew under a commander. The brown nosed morons whose only talent is pleasing their superior. People who, if they had any scruples at all, would be not USN but USMC or even USAF.

 

So you meant the USS Fitzgerald command? It's hard to come up with a reason for this failure other than complacency, except maybe fatigue... of course that's a subject surface and sub leadership never talks about. Your last comments just make you look like an ass.... because Marines and Air Force clearly never do anything dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In April I  encountered a new navy ship that was undergoing sea trials off Newport RI and heading to the war college to pick up engineers.  I can tell you they don't broadcast AIS, but do receive and don't show up on radar until 1.5nm.   They called on VHF to tell me they were crossing my bow coming from my starboard quarter.  I asked where are you?  They weren't visible and within a few minutes the big blob showed on radar.  

Knowing this first hand I wouldn't be surprised to hear they were in stealth mode, stationary and tanker never saw them until it was too late. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mizzmo said:

 

So you meant the USS Fitzgerald command? It's hard to come up with a reason for this failure other than complacency, except maybe fatigue... of course that's a subject surface and sub leadership never talks about. Your last comments just make you look like an ass.... because Marines and Air Force clearly never do anything dumb.

Our navy seems to get the most headlines. Regular mishaps for completely embarassing reasons. Plus the navy has not had a naval battle since WW2 except for a small interaction with the Iranians 30 years ago. Am I right? And then all they had to do was find and then out maneuver a couple of oil platforms...heh...right? So they are left with inflicting damage on their own ships. Captains asleep. Navigators listening to iPods. Etc etc. Completely useless except perhaps as portable airports. Seems a few filipino freighters could better serve our defenses.

The navy crew I met...drank with...last year on the micronesian island of XXXXXXX were pass-out stumble drunk boarding the shore boat on the way back to ship for an early departure. Captain and a few officers. Was stunning but not unexpected. Super fun bunch though!

Why do we waste money on them? What have they done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, crashtestdummy said:

In April I  encountered a new navy ship that was undergoing sea trials off Newport RI and heading to the war college to pick up engineers.  I can tell you they don't broadcast AIS, but do receive and don't show up on radar until 1.5nm.   They called on VHF to tell me they were crossing my bow coming from my starboard quarter.  I asked where are you?  They weren't visible and within a few minutes the big blob showed on radar.  

Knowing this first hand I wouldn't be surprised to hear they were in stealth mode, stationary and tanker never saw them until it was too late. 

Yeah it's a problem, we have to disengage  the cloaking device before we can fire the phasers. Or you might want to explore for issues with your radar.

Share this post


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

The damage to the container vessel is also consistent with a last moment right turn to try avoid/lessen damage.

Too many theories.  We should wait for the facts (me included).

Neither boat saw the other.  No horns, no radio screaming.  The Navy Skipper stayed asleep in his bunk all the way to the collision.  Both ships failed to maintain any lookout and slammed into one another in the dark.  The Navy even scrambled to weapons and general quarters thinking they were under attack.   They literally had no idea what hit them.  

At the first horn or second of an issue on a Navy ship the skipper is on the bridge in whatever he or she is wearing on not.   The skipper in the cabin tells the story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites