US Navy destroyer collision

[estarzinger]

Perhaps a one-step better translation . . . .*

"This is my English translation of the same report by Reuters in Japan in Japanese.
ACX Crystal captain wrote to the company that while cruising to Tokyo bay at 18 knots, TWO watch crews of ACX found the destroyer on 40 degree port side 3NM in distance around 1:15AM. 5 minutes later the destroyer suddenly started moving and continued on their collision course. While manually steering, ACX gave caution to the navy ship by turning on/off the light without any reaction. then decided to take hard starboard turn for collision avoidance but both ships crashed around 1:30AM.*
Takeshi from Yokohama"

Probably still not perfectly accurate representation of details from the actual captain's report

[transmitterdan]

So it is likely that a ship would use only flashing light signals and not voice VHF in an eminent collision situation?

[PatMc57]

So many words for what is plainly the sad truth. The US Navy was derelict in their duty....not expected. The cargo ship was derelict in their duty...somewhat expected. Tragic loss of life. US Navy must be held to a higher standard..which they do to themselves..our opinions mean nothing. International cargo standards must be held to a high standard because of their volume and potential for tragedy. This we take to lawmakers..Corporations will never self-police without pressure. Loss of life is is a "cost negative" accounting procedure for them.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So it is likely that a ship would use only flashing light signals and not voice VHF in an eminent collision situation?

It seems quite plausible to me that the Crystal bridge, dealing with an unknown ship not broadcasting AIS, so not knowing the name, did not take the time to plot a position of the target and put out a most likely useless "unknown ship in position _____ ________ heading ________, . . .. "

I don't think I would bother, 10 minutes from a possible collision. Flashing the nav lights to try to get attention of the target sounds reasonable; I presume they also sounded five blasts as required.

Sounds like they only detected the Fitz 3 miles out, but I think that's also plausible. Somewhat sloppy watchkeeping but plausible where the target's radar return is maybe not that strong, and no AIS.

I know that despite my own best intentions, I pay a lot less attention to radar returns with no associated AIS caret. I did pick up a German warship in the Western Baltic recently, noticed, tracked him with MARPA from 10 miles out, but how many have I missed? There but for the grace of God . . .

[Snowpetrel]

The flashing of lights described is commonly a very bright Aldis spotlight positioned on the port bridge wing for exactly this purpose. Giving a ship 5 flashes with this spotlight is usually a pretty quick way to get them to alter course if they are the give way vessel.

[Yowieboy]

Here's a link to the Japanese-language article on the Reuters Japan website:

https://jp.reuters.com/article/fitzgerald-idJPKBN19H12U

And here's my own (entirely unauthorized) quick translation of it. I make my living as a translator from Japanese, but I give no guarantees as to absence of errors, and in any case, there are always any number of ways a given Japanese sentence can be rendered in English. Here I tried to be as literal as possible, though. The article also (as is often the case in Japanese) does not clearly differentiate between quotations and the rest of the article. The first paragraph is basically a summary, and the second and third paragraphs are descriptions of the content of the report. From "In this collision" onwards, it's back to Reuters' journalistic writing.
----------
Container ship tried to warn U.S. vessel Fitzgerald by light signals

[Tokyo, June 26, Reuters] The content of a report submitted by the captain of the container ship that collided with an Aegis class destroyer of the U.S. Navy off the Izu peninsula to the owners of the container ship has come to light. The container ship spotted the Aegis vessel on its port side and tried to attract its attention by means of flashing a light, but the U.S. ship maintained its course. The container vessel then tried to turn to the right to avoid a collision, but there was not enough time.

According to the report, the Philippine-flagged container ship ACX Crystal was heading towards Tokyo Bay at a speed of 18 knots (about 33 km/h). At 01:15 a.m. on June 17, two lookouts spotted the Aegis class vessel Fitzgerald at 40 degrees off the port side at a distance of 3 nm (about 5.6 km).

About 5 minutes later, the Aegis vessel "suddenly" moved [from the Japanese it is not clear whether this was a move from a stationary condition or a change in movement, i.e. a course change]. Because a collision seemed likely on this course, the container ship, while manually steering, tried to attract the attention of the other ship by flashing a light. However, the American vessel seemed to maintain its course. The container ship therefore turned the rudder hard to starboard, but at 01:30 a.m. the two ships collided.

In this collision, seven members of the crew of the Aegis vessel lost their lives, making it the worst tragedy for a U.S. navy vessel since the bomb attack on an Aegis class vessel in Yemen in 2000. The captain of the Fitzgerald was wounded in his own quarters, which suggests the possibility that no warning was sounded prior to the collision.

The owners of the ACX Crystal, Dainichi-Invest Corporation (based in Kobe, Hyogo Pref.) declined to respond to inquiries by Reuters, saying that they could not provide any comment in relation to an ongoing investigation. The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Japan Coast Guard which are investigating the accident also declined to comment.
----------

[hpeer]

Thanks a whole lot for the translations.

Remarkable how different the US Reuters version is from either translation.

[Pelagic]

The incident has spurred six investigations, including two internal hearings by the U.S. Navy and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Japan Transport Safety Board, the JCG and the Philippines government are also conducting separate investigations.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

The flashing of lights described is commonly a very bright Aldis spotlight positioned on the port bridge wing for exactly this purpose. Giving a ship 5 flashes with this spotlight is usually a pretty quick way to get them to alter course if they are the give way vessel.

What we did, often in the Gulf of Mexico when there was SLEWS of vessels of all types, was try to contact on VHF ch. 16 saying "We are shining a spotlight in your direction for identification purposes."

"Rule 36 - Signals to Attraction Attention

If necessary to attract the attention of another vessel, any vessel may make light or sound signals that cannot be mistaken for any signal authorized elsewhere in these Rules, or may direct the beam of her searchlight in the direction of the danger, in such a way as not to embarrass any vessel. Any light to attract the attention of another vessel shall be such that it cannot be mistaken for any aid to navigation. For the purpose of this Rule the use of high intensity intermittent or revolving lights, such as strobe lights, shall be avoided."

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Thanks a whole lot for the translations.

Remarkable how different the US Reuters version is from either translation.

I wonder what language the original report to the shipping company was in. We may be reading a translations of translations. Still, the gist is that the USS Fitzgerald was observed on the port bow, and then suddenly changed it's course and/or speed from a presumably safe one to a collision track. The ACX Crystal tried to warn them, took evasive action, but collided anyway.

I was thinking that surely some spy satellites have infrared images of the tragedy.

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by Tx J

...

3. Would the USS Fitzgerald even have been using any potentially disruptive "advanced military electronics" in the vicinity of a TSS fairway (in peace time)? Extremely unlikely.

Put this wild "advanced military electronics" woowoo 'conspiracy theory' away for good, y'all.

For what it's worth, in the late 1980's we sailed our (then) Cal 2-29 out of Long Beach, Ca, frequently traveling between Catalina--usually on Thursday evenings and back late Sunday afternoons. We came and went through "Angel's Gate" in San Pedro and often encountered Navy ships coming/going. On one occasion on a return from Catalina we were surfing along on a reach with our Ray Marine wheel pilot steering. At some distance we observed an Agis (sp?) type ship approaching from the southeast. At one point, when that ship was about 3 miles or so from us, our Otto suddenly crash jibed the boat, making a sudden 90º turn to starboard and laying our port rail in the sea. I was behind the wheel and flipped off the clutch, bought the helm back and the boat righted herself. My (much) better half flew out of the companionway, having been thrown across the accommodation below, but fortunately into the cushioned seat on the port side of the boat. We swung the boat around, back toward the Gate but headed to pass behind the stern of the ship that was boiling along (and creating a heck of a wake) all the while our "Otto" moaning and groaning and the little drive motor whirling away until I flipped its breaker off. That had never happened before and later, "Otto" behaved normally.

I can only guess that something that ship was transmitting--some radar or whatever--completely scrambled Otto's little brain. Accordingly, whenever we observed one of those ships on the horizon, and we seemed too often in the vicinity of Long Beach and/or San Diego, we shut Otto's power off to avoid any more excitement!

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

I was thinking that surely some spy satellites have infrared images of the tragedy.

Or maybe data recorded by near by vessels.

The Captain of the CS appears to have been allowed to leave the county which would suggest that the JCG is satisfied (at this time) with the information from that side. That is not to say that they necessary believe him and his vessel to be without fault.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

I wonder what language the original report to the shipping company was in. We may be reading a translations of translations. Still, the gist is that the USS Fitzgerald was observed on the port bow, and then suddenly changed it's course and/or speed from a presumably safe one to a collision track. The ACX Crystal tried to warn them, took evasive action, but collided anyway.

I was thinking that surely some spy satellites have infrared images of the tragedy.

I am pretty sure the Filipino Captain speaks very good English as most large ship Captains here in the Philippines do.
They are taught that English is the 'language of Navigation' and the whole country's level of English is pretty good.

I am glad he has got a chance to publicaly say what happened as the US based accusations blaming him and his crew, would have been hard to listen to.

From the AIS Track (post # 380 supplied by TwoBlocked. ) it Looks like the Captain had been on the Bridge for a while, making a number of well considered course changes to avoid the busy crossing traffic and line up to enter Tokyo Bay. (I know I would have been on the Bridge to help the Mate in those conditions as I have done in the past)

At 3nm out, If the Fitz was also not showing any running lights, I can imagine it would certainly have added to the Captain's confusion and then if the Fitz made a sudden course and/or speed change, the standard full starboard rudder (about 25°) would have been applied along with danger signals.

Interpolating the Fitz's Aspect based on his report and his AIS track from 3nm out now gives us a rough track of the Fitz.

The US has the track of Fitz, but it is pretty damming to them, so they have not released it while emotions are high.

In TwoBlocked's post, he makes a very good suggestion that the Captain could have continued his hard turn to Starboard as a clearing 360° evasion, but without us knowing exactly what actions the Fitz took in those last 10 minutes, we are back to guessing

[Yowieboy]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

I wonder what language the original report to the shipping company was in. We may be reading a translations of translations.

Good point. For one thing, the Reuters Japan article I translated was basically all paraphrasing ("the container ship was heading...", not "we were heading..." etc.). And I also assume that the report by the captain originally was written (or spoken) in English and then got translated into Japanese, but at which point I have no idea. Seeing the original report of course would be ideal, but I think that won't happen any time soon.

[TwoBlocked]

Here is a table of typical container ship turning circles. This suggests that the USS Fitzgerald must have been less than 1/2 mile away when the ACX Crystal started their turn unless the USS Fitzgerald came to a course more than 90 degrees to the original course of the ACX Crystal. But even so ... Why would it take 10 minutes until the collision? Could the USS Fitzgerald somehow thought the only way out was to get across the bow and sorta ran the ACX Crystal down? And why wouldn't the ACX Crystal just continue turning to the right to avoid the USS Fitzgerald? The AIS plot shows them on a steady course after turning 90 degrees to the right.

Well, truth is stranger than fiction!

http://slideplayer.com/slide/8801746...iner+ships.jpg