US Navy destroyer collision

[transmitterdan]

gCaptain blames everyone:

Why The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault, Part 2 – Questions And Answers - gCaptain
https://apple.news/AJ4VdUNHMNuuMqEKVQ9EMqQ

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

gCaptain blames everyone:

Why The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault, Part 2 – Questions And Answers - gCaptain
https://apple.news/AJ4VdUNHMNuuMqEKVQ9EMqQ

Despite their click bait title, qcaptain is just speculating like most of the industry.

LOL

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

[transmitterdan]

Yes, there is speculation galore. But I have heard nothing consistent with a deliberate attack or "ramming" by the crew of the cargo vessel. The reports coming out of Japan suggest a lack of attention by both crews coupled with some, as yet unexplained, failure of an electronic navigation system.

If it is true that the cargo ship suffered a failure of its position sensing then that might have caused the AP to suddenly change course and the AIS to broadcast a wrong position. I think this is the theory floating around at the moment. But that does not relieve either vessel of the requirement to keep a lookout by all available means including eyes. Certainly the naval vessel had multiple eyeballs assigned as lookouts with night vision gear.

As usual, speculation will go wild until officials report more details.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

. . . If it is true that the cargo ship suffered a failure of its position sensing then that might have caused the AP to suddenly change course and the AIS to broadcast a wrong position. I think this is the theory floating around at the moment. But that does not relieve either vessel of the requirement to keep a lookout by all available means including eyes. Certainly the naval vessel had multiple eyeballs assigned as lookouts with night vision gear.. .

And radars, and radar operators, out the yin-yang. Not affected by erroneous positions broadcast over AIS . . .

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The reports are that the crew of the container ship appeared totally unaware that they even hit the naval vessel. The ship automatically applied more throttle after the collision according to news reports I have read. It wasn't until 30 minutes later that the crew took ship off AP and turned back to render assistance. A crew at the controls would not throttle up after a collision.

I havent seen autopilots that connect to the engine control system. So this to me sounds unlikely.

It is also pretty unlikely that the bridge was unmaned, not in these waters. Deep sea it might be possible, and I guess its possible the OOW was asleep or incapacitated in some way. Again unlikely since there is a large volume of traffic around, and the ship had 15 minute earlier made an alteration to port in keeping with the voluntary TSS. Many ships require these to be approved by the OOW pushing a button even when on track control.

One thing thats just occurred to me is how did the fitzgerald get released from the containership. There appears to be no real evidence of damage significantly ahead or astern of the impact zone on either ship. This suggests both ships were more or less stopped when they were disengaged. It also points towards a "T" impact rather than a glancing blow? If this is the case how long were the ships engaged together, and when were they disengaged?

A Random and very unlikely possibility, but since we are all speculating here goes...

Some Navy crew boarded the surprized Containership and took control of the ship. They left sometime later on when the ship slowed down after the 180 deg turn or near the island on the way to port. Using their own secure comms in conjunction with navy HQ and the fitzgerald they concocted a scenario in an attempt to cover up the whole messy business, or at least buy time to think of a few options.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Very interesting, but where are you getting these reports?

(disclaimer?: I've read this whole thread and much else on this incident, because interested, curious, concerned (my namesake was KIA aboard a DD, and a son serves in a CiC at this time-ATT), and some nebulous connections I won't mention here.)

Pelagic, I merely glommed onto your comment because there are a lot of bad/false/fake? "reports" of this floating around, and on the airwaves.
Below I'll cite just one glaring example of how all this unfounded 'stuff' gets to flowing through the IP ether.

I'm not even going to join much in this thread conversation, many of my own thoughts have already been well expounded by others here (with a few far-out CT'ers discounted).
I did run a mental plot when I saw the damage photos, etc and 'concluded' that the CG-62/Fitzgerald nav/bridge watch had probably made some multiple major errors. But it's early in the investigation.

I was looking at the USS Fitzgerald Wikipedia page, and it had some wholly erroneous stuff recently added, sourced from the following cited 'reference'.
That 'reference' was titled:
"Freighter Was On Autopilot When It Hit U.S. Destroyer". "USS Fitzgerald did not detect container ship".
Right there, in those two title sentences, are at least three errors and assumptions:
1. Unknown ATT whether the MV Crystal "Was On Autopilot".
2. Unknown ATT that "It" (MV Crystal) "Hit U.S. Destroyer", or vice versa.
3. Unknown ATT if "USS Fitzgerald did not detect container ship".
When the article's very title is riddled with errors, it doesn't bode well for the rest.
This 'reference' article then went on at some length with a mix of slanted speculations, mis-statements, mis-interpretations, and was riddled with errors and very questionable conclusions, opinions and 'sources'. Dox out alleged 'naval analyst S W' quoted from that article, who is an "internet blogger" without a CV from CA, 'coincidentally' where the specious Wiki edits came from an anonymous CA IP addy.
Makes you start to wonder about the extent of possible spin and propaganda on this incident.
That's how the snowball gets rolling.

OK, time to check my take on that mis-information source.
Read the whole article at the following link and see if y'all can spot all or any of the mostly obvious bull----, in light of what many of us know as sailors, and/or have read/written/discussed on this thread.
Read the article with a very skeptical, logical eye...:
Freighter Was On Autopilot When It Hit US Destroyer

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Tx J

(disclaimer?: I've read this whole thread and much else on this incident, because interested, curious, concerned (my namesake was KIA aboard a DD, and a son serves in a CiC at this time-ATT), and some nebulous connections I won't mention here.)

Pelagic, I merely glommed onto your comment because there are a lot of bad/false/fake? "reports" of this floating around, and on the airwaves.

Hi TxJ...Totally agree that this tragic incident is being poorly reported but I also believe it is being "managed" as opposed to being fully transparent.

Only by releasing the physical tracts and data logs of both ships, can we independently assess the aspects of both casualties leading up to the collision.

I mentioned in another post that we are being treated like 'Mushrooms'... (Kept in the dark and fed bullish*t)

Unfortunately that only spawns more frustration and BS, instead of mourning the loss of the 7 sailors and the heroics of those that survived.

To me, this is not about assessing blame. but physically plotting any mistakes, as if I was in charge on either bridge making them.

Having completed various levels of SEN (Simulated Electronic Navigation) with weeks in the simulators being put thru all kinds of kamikaze target situations at the helm of different types of ships , it is only after the exercises, when analyzing the plots and multilateral considerations, that we learn to become more vigilant and less prone to assumptions at Sea.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi TxJ...Totally agree that this tragic incident is being poorly reported but I also believe it is being "managed" as opposed to being fully transparent.

Only by releasing the physical tracts and data logs of both ships, can we independently assess the aspects of both casualties leading up to the collision...

Right, Pelagic. I'd go further than just "managed". From looking at a lot of the comments and even published sources, made on other sites, and the use of clearly incorrect, circular, self-dealing, and/or wildly speculative opinions. The whole sh*tstorm tends to slowly shape the mis&mal-formed opinions of the mostly clueless general public in a bad way.
Hope some more definitive, accurate information gets put out before too long, no more than a week or two, in order to quash a lot of the wilder stuff floating around that is starting to run wild (most of present company excepted ).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I mentioned in another post that we are being treated like 'Mushrooms'... (Kept in the dark and fed bullish*t)

I am confident of two things:

1. The information is being managed carefully. Maybe out of completing the investigation first, maybe out of some security concern, maybe as a face-saving move.
2. Regardless of what's put out to the public, I'm certain that the right conclusions will be reached and the guilty or negligent will be dealt with. This the US Navy, not some tinpot country's only armed runabout.

So, the slow trickle is annoying to us, but that's about the worst of it.

[SaltyMetals]

A question for you {ex?) navy guys. Would à vessel like the Fitz be equipped with electronics which can deliberately confuse a nearby ship? I have had close passes with Guardia Costiera boats at night ( both Spanish and Italian) who were running in stealth mode. I should have seen them on my radar but I have not yet upgraded my radar so I only go down to the chart table every 15 mins. Most of the time it is picking up fishing boats who may have switched OFF their AIS so the competition cannot see where they are. My cockpit plotter is latest Raymarine A Series so has charts and AIS but my old radar speaks the old language so I have to read the radar down at the old plotter at chart table. It bothers me if guys run in stealth mode and then maybe only "declare" themselves at the last minute. I was just about to fire a rocket flare at one of them thinking it was N African pirates. Lucky I held off. It was the police!

Should private sailors assume that navy vessels run in stealth mode (no AIS, no nav lights, and very minimal radar reflected signal?) just I experienced 3x last summer in southern Mediterranean but in that case it was high powered security vessels.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Tx J

Right, Pelagic. I'd go further than just "managed". From looking at a lot of the comments and even published sources, made on other sites, and the use of clearly incorrect, circular, self-dealing, and/or wildly speculative opinions. The whole sh*tstorm tends to slowly shape the mis&mal-formed opinions of the mostly clueless general public in a bad way.
Hope some more definitive, accurate information gets put out before too long, no more than a week or two, in order to quash a lot of the wilder stuff floating around that is starting to run wild (most of present company excepted ).

I just wanted to say how much I agree. I'm on another non-sailing thread where this is discussed. The average Joe has no clue of what happened. How could he? So the tin foil starts to rain and without some method of deflecting it, it does its job and totally obfuscates the real issues.

Not to veer too far afield I would just add that it's not just in this situation but rampent across any field where I can do some independent verification. The press is pitiful.

[Auspicious]

I keep seeing people refer to "stealth mode." I'm not sure just what they mean, or think they mean.

There is no switch.

Unless something has changed since I was a NAVSEA contractor working on ship design what the Navy and other military calls "stealth" is entirely passive and is based on energy absorptive coatings and careful selection of angles to minimize radar cross section. I remember a symposium to which I contributed that was focused on stealth design for intimidation. Stealth ships don't have the aggressive, bristling look of previous designs. A vertical launch system doesn't have the visual factors that a 16" gun does. *grin*

Running dark, as the Navy, Coast Guard, and small Army boats sometimes do on border patrol and drug interdiction reduces profile but isn't considered stealth.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The reports are that the crew of the container ship appeared totally unaware that they even hit the naval vessel. The ship automatically applied more throttle after the collision according to news reports I have read. It wasn't until 30 minutes later that the crew took ship off AP and turned back to render assistance. A crew at the controls would not throttle up after a collision.

APs generally work on the steering system, not on the "throttles". I didn't have a look at Crystal's AIS track, but was under the impression that she was going 17 kts up until the thump in the night, then about 12 kts. It suggests to me, that whether or not the steering was done by Otto, they slowed down and picked a course that matched the prevailing traffic (rather than across it or in circles) likely while they did their own damage assessment. 20 - 30 minutes seems reasonable for that, after which they came back to render aid.

[transmitterdan]

We'll have to wait until the Japanese release more details I think. They have the digital voyage data and from what I heard the ship was entirely on automatics including throttles. That may be a misunderstanding by the reporter. There is a lack of official reports because it is just too early.

The AIS track is suspect according to one report I read in a local paper. There is speculation that the navigation instruments malfunctioned causing the AP to suddenly change course and then resume original course after the collision. If the nav data was wrong then so too could be the AIS data. The best data on the course of the container ship may come from the radar logs on the destroyer. I feel sure there small radar(s) were up and recording everything. I doubt their big fire control radars were running at the time

[TwoBlocked]

"Why should the US Navy care whether you trust them?!"

Oh yes, indeedy! And we can substitute any person or organization for the US Navy. But, let's not confuse things. We will stick with the USN.

First, do they care? I think so from their actions and the press releases. Rather than give any details (not even the correct time of the collision!) they expound on the heroism and the mournful loss of the sailors on board. If they didn't care what we thought, there would be silence, nothing but crickets to listen to.

But then why do they care?

The US Navy cares whether we trust them so that they can benefit from that trust. Things like sending our children to their recruiters, writing our congressmen that we need an 2,000 ship fleet, and to obey when they say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

What makes the red flashing light go off in the back of my mind is people questioning my compassion if I do not trust someone that is asking for trust. What is the number one line from a con man? "Trust me!"