US Navy destroyer collision

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I agree Snow petrel,

To me, that article is a condescending load of bollocks!

Telling us mere civilians that we are somehow unpatriotic by asking basic questions about why they will not release ....Or Allow the Japanease Marine Authority...to release the recorded track of the Fitz?

Pure spin to confuse and control the Masses as commercial Masters do not need to be lectured on COLREGS and rule 8f.

I am afraid the only word that comes to mind about this lack of equal transparency is..
Arrogance!

Yet reserves the right to publicly question ever alleged action of the commercial vessel.

I can only assume that the spin is designed have the US population convict the other vessel and crew before a quite release of what ever inquiry comes out with. Given the Navy request for extra ships and manpower that is the subject of debate in Washington, i do not expect any public release of findings before decisions on appropriations are made.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

USS Fitzgerald: Investigate First, Blame Later

An interesting article, such as invoking rule 8f, that as far as I can see bears no relevance to this case. Also the possibility that the bridge was unmanned because the OOW was waking their relief. It is a possibility but on every merchant vessel I have sailed on its done via the ships telephone system.

I think the fact that no details have been released about the course of the fitzgerald and the CS is pretty damning. By now they should have all the basic facts confirmed. If the containership was the give way vessel they would almost certainly officially released this information.

I am more sympathetic to this reticence of the Navy. I was recently skewered in the press after I released information about a project of mine prematurely, under pressure. I should never have given in to this pressure, and should have talked to them only when the whole story could be made public. They are only interested in headlines and will do all kinds of mischief with incomplete, premature bits of information.


Concerning the question of who was stand-on and who give-way -- WHO CARES? Why is this important? The epic failure on the Fitzgerald is in not one whit less epic, if the Fitz was stand-on.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

USS Fitzgerald: Investigate First, Blame Later

An interesting article, such as invoking rule 8f, that as far as I can see bears no relevance to this case. Also the possibility that the bridge was unmanned because the OOW was waking their relief. It is a possibility but on every merchant vessel I have sailed on its done via the ships telephone system. . . . .

I do agree, however, that the article is silly.

What relevance does ANY of this have? Communications? Bah! Collision avoidance doesn't depend on communications.

Bad watch on the Crystal? So what? Is he trying to say that the Fitzgerald, with its dozens of trained personnel, couldn't get out of the way of a badly handled merchant ship, even if the merchant ship WAS badly handled?

This is nonsense. Every vessel is supposed to be handled in such a way, that it can prevent a collision no matter what the other vessel does. That's how the COLREGS work, and it's different from land. And a vessel like the Fitzgerald is equipped and manned to a far higher standard -- it is supposed to be capable of getting out of the way of -- or tracking and destroying -- multiple hostile vessels, and even missiles, who are NOT, unlike a civilian merchant ship, trying themselves to avoid a conflict.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I do agree, however, that the article is silly.

What relevance does ANY of this have? Communications? Bah! Collision avoidance doesn't depend on communications.

Bad watch on the Crystal? So what? Is he trying to say that the Fitzgerald, with its dozens of trained personnel, couldn't get out of the way of a badly handled merchant ship, even if the merchant ship WAS badly handled?

This is nonsense. Every vessel is supposed to be handled in such a way, that it can prevent a collision no matter what the other vessel does. That's how the COLREGS work, and it's different from land. And a vessel like the Fitzgerald is equipped and manned to a far higher standard -- it is supposed to be capable of getting out of the way of -- or tracking and destroying -- multiple hostile vessels, and even missiles, who are NOT, unlike a civilian merchant ship, trying themselves to avoid a conflict.

Exactly. It struck me as a silly article as well, and if this is the kind of thinking behind the best minds in the navy it is a pretty sad reflection on them. I still can't get over the misunderstanding he seemed to have over rule 8f. Either it was a hasty mistake or the guy has no idea how "not to impede" fits into the colregs.

There seems to be some sort of collective blindness in the way the navy and large elements of the press seem to want to deflect blame onto the merchant ship at every turn. Some fault definitely lies with the merchant ship, and I would hazard a guess that they didn't see the warship at all. Possibly due to overreliance on AIS?

But compare this to the massive systemic errors by numerous people on the warships side, again I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was found they had no idea the other ship was there until the collision occurred.

I have a very hard time believing all comms were knocked out on the warship. Surely they would have multiple redundant systems? The navy HQ somewhere should have known something had happened minutes or even seconds after it happened. If one localized impact can wreak the entire comms capability of a ship this size it is a pretty serious weakness in the design of the warship.

Seems to me the spin doctors are doing their absolute best on this one to alter public perception.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

^^ Sounds like it wasn't the best run BRM course. And older experainced Captains would be hard to teach at the best of times!

Most of the BRM principles were well done on the P&O ships in the 90's. With the exception of the Challenge and response part. Back in those days the Captain was king, and no junior officer would be taken serously if they challenged the Captain. I still think this is an area where merchant shipping is weak. I am not sure what navy culture is like in this regard?

I remember once as a Cadet doing regular position fixes during a port entry, we appeared to be set towards the shoals so I approached the captain and pilot and tried to get a word in about this. They both ignored me, and when I spoke up I was rudely brushed away as they went back to their discussion about something non ship related. We didn't run aground, but I still think we were closer to the shoal than the captain or pilot released.

I was annoyed to be brushed off, and didn't bother him again. In retrospect this was definately a breakdown in BRM. Something like the five step assertive statement, or the two challenge rule should have been part of the bridge proceedures. I'd like to think things have got better, but I am not sure if this is the case. Eg El Faro and the way the captain ignored the junior officers justified concerns about the weather forcast.

"Something like the five step assertive statement, or the two challenge rule should have been part of the bridge proceedures."

Could you explain the "five step assertive statement" and "two challenge rule" ? Sounds good, but is new to me.

And, ah, yes. Pride rears it's ugly head whenever people are involved. It is easy to discern because WHO is right becomes more important than WHAT is right. It is a form of tyranny which is usually met with passive aggressive behavior. This can quickly escalate to a dysfunctional situation. Too bad this isn't covered more in team work training, rather than the divide an conquer approach of each doing their niche assignment.

[El Pinguino]

This is all getting sillier and sillier... 'experts agree the ASX Crystal was overtaking the warship'.... really.... so the warship was also on her way from Nagoya to Tokyo and 'slow steaming'.... OK... whatever...

'The ASX Crystal was on autopilot and the watch was probably watching porn' ..merchant ships are always on autopilot when out of pilotage waters .. its more efficient and safer...

'The ship had a skeleton crew and probably only 2 men on watch'.. 20 isn't a skeleton crew.. its all you need to run a modern merchant ship.... likewise 2 on watch , 3 in certain circumstances... ie port arrival and departure, fog, very heavy traffic ie Dover Straits... any more would be underemployed and in the way.

Based on the earlier statement by the Navy that the warship 'returned' to port I still think that we have a simple crossing situation, the ASX Crystal -having decide that the warship was taking no action- simply left her turn 30 seconds too late.

[TwoBlocked]

On every modern ship you can find one helmsman that out preforms every other on holding a steady course. It makes it very easy for the Officer on the bridge to concern themselves with other things rather than if the guy at the wheel is paying attention. Plotting a running fix, determining set and drift, calculating CPA to other vessels, making it clear to other vessels your heading and intentions, make this helmsman every Officer's first choice. He even more than pays for himself in fuel savings. His name is "Iron Mike."

Those in the Merchant Fleet have surely experienced times when there was a power failure and the gyro had to go through a time of re-stabilizing itself. Then you have a human helmsman steering by magnetic compass or by a point on the horizon or perhaps the gyro as it steadies up a bit. What a relief it is when "Iron Mike" is back on the wheel!

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

...

Based on the earlier statement by the Navy that the warship 'returned' to port I still think that we have a simple crossing situation, the ASX Crystal -having decide that the warship was taking no action- simply left her turn 30 seconds too late.

Sir, I don't understand how you see this as a simple crossing situation if the USS Fitzgerald was returning to port. Both vessels would have been headed for the same port, going in at least the same general direction. Also, a Japanese newspaper reported the ACX Crystal said both vessels were heading in the same direction. Can you explain your reasoning?

I have to mention, though, that this could be a complicated crossing situation. It is a ship's relative bearing, not it's heading, that makes it a crossing situation. For instance, the USS Fitzgerald might have been on course 090 (to gain the center of the TSS?), the ACX Crystal on course 070, and at a relative bearing of one point aft of the starboard beam. This would be a crossing situation. but with the same headings, if the ACX Crystal was 3 points aft the starboard beam, it would be an overtaking situation.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

Sir, I don't understand how you see this as a simple crossing situation if the USS Fitzgerald was returning to port. Both vessels would have been headed for the same port, going in at least the same general direction. Also, a Japanese newspaper reported the ACX Crystal said both vessels were heading in the same direction. Can you explain your reasoning?

I have to mention, though, that this could be a complicated crossing situation. It is a ship's relative bearing, not it's heading, that makes it a crossing situation. For instance, the USS Fitzgerald might have been on course 090 (to gain the center of the TSS?), the ACX Crystal on course 070, and at a relative bearing of one point aft of the starboard beam. This would be a crossing situation. but with the same headings, if the ACX Crystal was 3 points aft the starboard beam, it would be an overtaking situation.

The early reports stated the USN ship 'returned to port' after the collision.

The Japan Times stated .. ' but experts generally agree the Philippine-flagged cargo ship was likely trying to pass the destroyer from behind when the two collided. '

USS Fitzgerald crash site off Japan known for congested nighttime traffic | The Japan Times

Which experts were those exactly? Maybe the same ones that said that 'KOOL' cigarettes were better for your health?

'It is a ship's relative bearing, not it's heading, that makes it a crossing situation.' .. Really?? do you want some think time on that one?

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The early reports stated the USN ship 'returned to port' after the collision.

The Japan Times stated .. ' but experts generally agree the Philippine-flagged cargo ship was likely trying to pass the destroyer from behind when the two collided. '

USS Fitzgerald crash site off Japan known for congested nighttime traffic | The Japan Times

Which experts were those exactly? Maybe the same ones that said that 'KOOL' cigarettes were better for your health?

'It is a ship's relative bearing, not it's heading, that makes it a crossing situation.' .. Really?? do you want some think time on that one?

I encourage you to enlighten me.

[TwoBlocked]

Been trying to find more info on the USS Porter collision, but am coming up with a blank. Can't find anything from the Navy nor anyone else for that matter using Google. Looking for something perhaps with tracklines and a narrative. There is 4 minute audio, which is pretty confusing especially due to an OOD mixing up port and starboard. Can anyone help?

Makes me wonder if much will ever get published about the USS Fitzgerald collision, either...

[estarzinger]

^^re the Porter - " The Navy has declined to release or discuss a pair of investigations into the incident"

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

I encourage you to enlighten me.

Maybe something was lost in translation but I would try for 'a combination of both relative bearing and heading' ....

You can alter the relative bearing by altering course but if the true bearing remains the same your prospects may still be bleak.

Think of the case where a yacht may alter course to avoid a collision but in doing so her speed increases by several knots ( close hauled to beam reach maybe ? ) .
The vector thingamajigs may in some cases simply realign themselves so that the CPA remains zero....

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Maybe something was lost in translation but I would try for 'a combination of both relative bearing and heading' ....

You can alter the relative bearing by altering course but if the true bearing remains the same your prospects may still be bleak.

Think of the case where a yacht may alter course to avoid a collision but in doing so her speed increases by several knots ( close hauled to beam reach maybe ? ) .
The vector thingamajigs may in some cases simply realign themselves so that the CPA remains zero....

Yes that can complicate things. For instance, with powered vessels, can you back into a vessel and declare that it was overtaking you?

The reason I use the term relative, is because of how the Rules of the Road are worded and actually work. I won't look it up or quote, but you are generally the Give-Way vessel in any closing situation where the other vessel is from dead ahead to two points aft the starboard beam, regardless of their heading. So if you, yourself, are in a closing situation with a vessel and you are within those relative bearings of the other vessel, you are the Stand-On vessel. It doesn't matter what your heading is, only what your relative bearing from the other vessel is.

Thanks for engaging in this conversation.

[jtsailjt]

It sounds to me that this is a pretty simple case of overreliance on advanced technological gadgets and too little basic watchkeeping. The crew of both ships were essentially asleep at the wheel and it's almost irrelevant to me to learn details such as the exact geometry of the collision or which was the stand on vessel, etc. It's mere quibbling. Both ships crews were obligated to abide by Colreg 5 and obviously neither did, and people died. Unforgivable for both crews.

Rule 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

In the past, I've seen several frequent posters on this forum argue that it is acceptable to go to see so shorthanded that you are bound to become fatigued and that justifies the whole crew being asleep and they try to rationalize this by pointing to all the gadgets and alarms they have set before abandoning their legal obligation to keep a proper lookout (NOBODY can do that through their eyelids) and they claim that they've been doing it a long time and lots of other experienced sailors do it too and haven't ever hit anyone. Of course the Captains and crew of both the Crystal and the Fitzgerald could both have made that same claim of never having hit anyone up until they did. I wonder if this collision has "opened the eyes" of any of those who in the past have argued that it's OK to operate a moving vessel while asleep as long as you have lots of gadgets onboard and lots of alarms set? It seems to me that this collision, with both ships bridges loaded with all the latest electronic detection gadgets, provides about as good an illustration as we'll ever see that Colreg 5 must be taken literally by all vessels at sea. We ALL MUST keep a proper lookout at ALL times, period. Even the best gadgets can only be an aid to proper watchkeeping with the bottom line being that there has to be somebody on watch who is actively monitoring those gadgets as well as looking out the windows, at ALL times.
*