US Navy destroyer collision

[Taichungman]

Originally Posted by sailpower

I have been reading yours and others speculation, assumptions and pontificating and was not going to bother responding because, what would be the point?

But your last sentence is absurd beyond absurdity.

People died. Why not just wait for the JAGMAN?

I second that, Sailpower. I bristled as soon as I saw it and then, considered where it came from.

[El Pinguino]

Meanwhile, back at gCaptain......

'The U.S. Navy did not immediately respond when asked if it would release tracking data to the Japan Coast Guard.

The ACX Crystal reported the collision at 2:25 a.m. (1725 GMT) prompting Japanese authorities to initially log the incident at 2:20 a.m.

The Japan Coast Guard subsequently revised the time to 1:30 a.m. meaning the container ship waited 55 minutes before contacting the coast guard, according to the Japan Coast Guard.

Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows the merchant ship chartered by Japan’s Nippon Yusen KK, made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. on June 17.

The Fitzgerald did not contact local authorities. The Japan Coast Guard radioed it after receiving the first report of the collision.'

So much for all the hit and run rollocks re the ASX Crystal not advising the Japanese MSA for 55 minutes....

A bit like 'why didn't you phone your mum the instant after being in the multi car pile up on the freeway'.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Meanwhile, back at gCaptain......

'The U.S. Navy did not immediately respond when asked if it would release tracking data to the Japan Coast Guard.

The

The Fitzgerald did not contact local authorities. The Japan Coast Guard radioed it after receiving the first report of the collision.'

So much for all the hit and run rollocks re the ASX Crystal not advising the Japanese MSA for 55 minutes....

A bit like 'why didn't you phone your mum the instant after being in the multi car pile up on the freeway'.

I would be willing to bet the reason the fitzgerald didnt contact the Japanese coastguard is they were a little busy just trying to stay afloat and alive.
I was a hull tech( damage control specalist) I Know that side all to well.

[TwoBlocked]

First let me extend my condolences to all that have suffered a personal loss in this tragedy. And let's hope that the guilt and blame that everyone feels over this incident will not cloud the investigation nor the relationships among the crewmembers.

I spent 4 years in the USCG obtaining the rank of QM1 and then 20 years in the Merchant Marines, attaining a Master Unlimited license.

It seems the big question is "How could this happen?" Hard to say right now, but from my experience and looking at the following link, I have an idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1b58yelh_c

Let's first remember that with vessels in sight of each other, you must yield to those from dead ahead to two points aft the starboard beam. But what if a vessel is right at that point and each vessel believes THEY are the one that is privileged? But then there is how vessels actually are maneuvered and expect each other to maneuver.

About 10 minutes before collision, the MV Crystal turned 20 deg to port to avoid an island 12 miles ahead. This could have changed the situation from one where the USS Fitzgerald would pass astern of the MV Crystal to one where they were on a collision course. But the MV Crystal may have been assuming that the USS Fitzgerald would be following the regular traffic route north of Toshiba Island. Regardless, if this was the case, the MV Crystal would continue to be the burdened vessel if it was overtaking the USS Fitgerald (which seems likely...). You cannot change from being a burdened, overtaking vessel, into a privileged, crossing vessel even if you are then forward of two points aft the starboard beam. The prudent thing for the MV Crystal to have done (IF this was the case) would have been to turn to starboard 340 degrees as to end up safely passing behind the still privileged USS Fitzgerald. It’s called performing a “round turn.” Again if this was the case, the USS Fitzgerald, as the privileged vessel would be required to hold course and speed until it was apparent that the MV Crystal was not taking appropriate action. And at the point where the actions of the MV Crystal alone could not prevent a collision, the USS Fitzgerald would be required to take action. You never have the right of way through another vessel… They will probably found both to be in the wrong.

To put a narrative to this possible scenario (there are surely many others), the MV Crystal is on it's typical route with tons of typical traffic around including a slower vessel (the USS Fitzgerald on the port bow) that it is slowly overtaking. When 12 miles from Toshiba Island, it alters course to port 20 degrees, expecting the USS Fitzgerald to do the same. And since it is a container ship, the containers at least partially obscure the destroyer. As they get closer, probably completely obscure its navigation lights: out of sight out of mind until - bang!

In the meantime, the OOD and QMOW on the USS Fitzgerald are waiting until they are, say 12,000 yards from Toshiba Island to alter course to port. They are looking more ahead rather than on the starboard quarter. Or perhaps to kill time for port entry they turn starboard to go south of Toshiba Island. Or perhaps they just continue due east, until - bang!

Oh, how things can creep up on you when you are out to sea... I have doubts this was a high speed collision.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Captains are human...they need sleep!
.....the failure of alerting the Captain to the bridge was not his but the officer in charge.

Forgive me for nitpicking, but the fault is always the Captain's! The OOD should have been properly instructed, and the standing orders should have been absolutely clear. And if the OOD was not capable of understanding or executing them, the Captain should not have left him in charge!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

. . .

About 10 minutes before collision, the MV Crystal turned 20 deg to port to avoid an island 12 miles ahead. This could have changed the situation from one where the USS Fitzgerald would pass astern of the MV Crystal to one where they were on a collision course. But the MV Crystal may have been assuming that the USS Fitzgerald would be following the regular traffic route north of Toshiba Island. Regardless, if this was the case, the MV Crystal would continue to be the burdened vessel if it was overtaking the USS Fitgerald (which seems likely...). You cannot change from being a burdened, overtaking vessel, into a privileged, crossing vessel even if you are then forward of two points aft the starboard beam. The prudent thing for the MV Crystal to have done (IF this was the case) would have been to turn to starboard 340 degrees as to end up safely passing behind the still privileged USS Fitzgerald. It’s called performing a “round turn.” Again if this was the case, the USS Fitzgerald, as the privileged vessel would be required to hold course and speed until it was apparent that the MV Crystal was not taking appropriate action. . . .

Aren't you forgetting Rule 13(d)?

(d). Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.


What this means is that give way and stand on vessels don't change their status in an overtaking situation, just because the overtaking vessel ends up less than 22.5 degrees abaft the beam of the other vessel, for any reason, including changes of course. The overtaking vessel is give-way until she is "finally past and clear".


Also I would say that the choice of the word "privilege" is unfortunate in this context. The concepts of "privileged" and "burdened" vessels were explicitly and consciously removed from the COLREGS with the 1972 revisions.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Aren't you forgetting Rule 13(d)?

(d). Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear. .....

No, I don't think I forgot that rule. That is why I posted:

"You cannot change from being a burdened, overtaking vessel, into a privileged, crossing vessel even if you are then forward of two points aft the starboard beam."

And thanks for reminding me I should use the terms Stand-On and Give-Way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

No, I don't think I forgot that rule. That is why I posted:

"You cannot change from being a burdened, overtaking vessel, into a privileged, crossing vessel even if you are then forward of two points aft the starboard beam."

I somehow missed that bit! Apologies!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Forgive me for nitpicking, but the fault is always the Captain's! The OOD should have been properly instructed, and the standing orders should have been absolutely clear. And if the OOD was not capable of understanding or executing them, the Captain should not have left him in charge!

Hi Dockhead... Let me nitpick back.....but I am talking about normal commercial not Navy, where they may want him to fall on his sword.

The standing orders are in place
They are formally signed off at each change of watch along with any special orders written down by the Captain.
Departing Watch keeper reviews those orders with his relief and confirms that they are understood and that new Watch keeper is alert and sober.

If all those protocols are in place and even the very best of Watch keeper makes a serious and tragic mistake, why is that one incident the Captain's fault?

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Forgive me for nitpicking, but the fault is always the Captain's! The OOD should have been properly instructed, and the standing orders should have been absolutely clear. And if the OOD was not capable of understanding or executing them, the Captain should not have left him in charge!

The Night Orders are for ALL the bridge watch standers, not just the OOD. They could ALL be at fault, if you want to nitpick.

But perhaps the Captain WAS called, informed that they are being overtaken by a vessel on the starboard side with an CPA of 3,000 yards. The Captain takes a look out of his porthole, says "Very well. Call me if the situation changes." and then continues writing a letter home. Just because he was in his cabin, doesn't mean he was asleep. Shortly after, the overtaking vessel alters course 20 deg to port and the danger is not obvious until - bang!

No rule ever written is sailor proof. That's why sea lawyers are held in low regard. It is the principle or spirit behind the rules that are more important.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

We still don't the track and last actions of the Fitzgerald as the Navy in their arrogance have still not released that information to the public.

Arrogance?!

Do you think maybe the Navy is waiting until they are sure of all the facts before they release anything so that they don't inadvertently release speculative blather like what is being spewed on the internet?

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Wow! Thanks Delancy, that ABC video now makes some sense of the conflicting timeline reports, the absurdity of an unknown target (Fitzgerald) slowly converging to port and the inability of both Bridge officers to decide on a safe course of action because of Navy policy to NOT transmit their intentions to commercial ships.

A perfect storm of bad policy that promotes situational ignorance,, sloppy watch keeping on the junior watch and the dangerous sector where crossing and overtaking is often not clear...or fluctuates with minor course variations.

This Tragically Cost 7 lives!! and
Makes me both sad and angry!

I can understand why the CS took so long to turn around.

This would be thier normal condition:

Engineroom rung off Standby, Engineer Asleep
Captain Asleep
Unidentified Target converging slowly from their port
Mate tries a few avoidance course changes as they slowly converge
In a panic, Mate Alters to Port to pass astern

We still don't the track and last actions of the Fitzgerald as the Navy in their arrogance have still not released that information to the public.

After the collision, confusion and shock as the CS continues with the same shaft revolutions for what to them seemed like a glancing blow.

Captain wakes up and tries to figure out what happened.

Chief Engineer does soundings and visual inspection of cargo and shell plate and Reports to Captain
Captain now in command who sees clear traffic ahead, maintains course as he evaluates their condition.

Engineroom now on Stand bye, Captain advises Coast Guard of his own situation, deems it safe to turn around to offer any assistance to a stll unknown casualty.

All of that takes time and is NOT a hit and run, as the media are saying.

Yup, you got it!

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by djlocker

ArsTechnica.com is reporting that the collision took out the Fitzgerald's radio room, accounting for the lack of timely report from the Fitz of the collision:

Thanks for the link. It confirms my suspicions of what I think happened.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I would be willing to bet the reason the fitzgerald didnt contact the Japanese coastguard is they were a little busy just trying to stay afloat and alive.
I was a hull tech( damage control specalist) I Know that side all to well.

May I ask, sir, since you where a hull tech, whether the destroyer would actually have been lost without extensive damage control. There is no doubt in my mind that the DC crews did a fantastic job considering they entered port with only 5 degrees of list after loosing 2 compartments to the sea. It seemed they were down by the head, which is understandable. I know merchant ships are designed to remain seaworthy after such damage. Would this destroyer have been? Please take this as a benign, professional question, sir.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Arrogance?!

Do you think maybe the Navy is waiting until they are sure of all the facts before they release anything so that they don't inadvertently release speculative blather like what is being spewed on the internet?

Hi sail power, I think all the speculation of the interaction between the two vessels is precisely because the US Navy has not released the track history of what happened TWO days ago.

Of course they have that info as does the Japanese Marine Authority, but it is arrogant that the Navy still acts stealthily..... AFTER THE FACTS!