US Navy destroyer collision

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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.

And rousting the crew out of their bunks, sounding the bilges, getting the ER manned and ready, etc.,etc. meanwhile staying in the traffic lane to avoid more collision avoidance situations or maneuvers -- sounds perfectly reasonable to me. As far as I understand, the Crystal is powered by a low speed direct drive diesel which requires significant work to even change the speed, not to speak of stopping it or reversing it.

Also, the fact that neither vessel reported the incident right away, does not seem at all odd to me. Both crews had much more urgent things to do, and on the Crystal, I guess they were deeply confused about what happened, and probably didn't even know what to report at first.

I realize that in the absence of facts, the tendency to wild speculation is intensified, but maybe we should wait a little before going off the deep end with it.

[Pelagic]

This article discusses the issues of who will have jurisdiction in the investigation and its effect on the regional security concerns with North Korea.

http://gcaptain.com/investigators-se...ss-fitzgerald/

[bcn]

One more press snippet from Reuters:
Exclusive: U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning - container ship captain | Reuters

[Cormorant]

Shows just how slow these large vessels are to respond to a course change:

>>'In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.
The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.'

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by bcn

One more press snippet from Reuters:
Exclusive: U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning - container ship captain | Reuters

Thanks, BCN!

"In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters."

So according to this, the ACX Crystal's 90 degree turn to starboard (about 16:33 UTC) was to avoid the collision, not as a result of the collision. And the collision happened a few minutes later. The more prudent action of the ACX Crystal might have been to continue to the right, make a 360 degree turn and then proceed on track.

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

One thing to mention, folks. When a vessel is very close to the bow of another, the forward masthead light can appear higher than the aft one, and the heading of the vessel can be misinterpreted. That was part of the cause of the USCGC Cuyahoga's sinking. If I remember right, the positioning of the side lights on vessels was changed globally to try to address this problem.

But those of you that have served on large ships, imagine, for whatever reason, suddenly seeing on your starboard side:

1. a high masthead light abeam
2. a red, port sidelight abaft the beam
3. another masthead light, lower than the first, on the quarter
4. other deck lights of various hues

Might it be confusing to suddenly see this at 1:30 AM? Might you think you would pass safely astern, given no other info?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by bcn

One more press snippet from Reuters:
Exclusive: U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning - container ship captain | Reuters

That's far from a snippet!!

A statement from the Captain of the Crystal which sheds a tremendous amount of light.

It seems to indicate that contrary to speculation, the Crystal crew were NOT asleep and were NOT unaware of the presence of the Fitzgerald.

If this statement is accurate, then what happened was the two vessels were on something like a parallel course, then the Fitz made a "sudden" turn to cross the Crystal's bows. The Crystal made a hard turn to starboard -- which we can clearly see in the AIS track -- but could not prevent the collision.

If all this is true, then the Crystal's hard turn probably saved the Fitzgerald from being t-boned and sunk.

I guess this must all be entirely true -- because the Crystal's VDR data will come to light in the investigation, and the Captain wouldn't say something which would be contradicted by it.

What was going on on the Fitzgerald bridge is now anyone's guess. I suppose they must have either been maneuvering, for some reason, oblivious to the presence of the Crystal, or MORE LIKELY: they perceived what seemed to be a collision risk, and made the wrong maneuver. If they were handling the situation, the way the situation was handled on the Porter bridge, without benefit of crossing data, then we can easily imagine how this happened.

Quite contrary to all the speculation about how the accident may have been caused by "over-reliance on technology" -- if it really happened this way, then it was the opposite -- over-reliance on the magic Mark I Eyeball and without consulting instruments which could have given the fatally missing information, just like what happened on the Porter.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

Thanks, BCN!

"In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters."

So according to this, the ACX Crystal's 90 degree turn to starboard (about 16:33 UTC) was to avoid the collision, not as a result of the collision. And the collision happened a few minutes later. The more prudent action of the ACX Crystal might have been to continue to the right, make a 360 degree turn and then proceed on track.

One thing to mention, folks. When a vessel is very close to the bow of another, the forward masthead light can appear higher than the aft one, and the heading of the vessel can be misinterpreted. That was part of the cause of the USCGC Cuyahoga's sinking. If I remember right, the positioning of the side lights on vessels was changed globally to try to address this problem.

But those of you that have served on large ships, imagine, for whatever reason, suddenly seeing on your starboard side:

1. a high masthead light abeam
2. a red, port sidelight abaft the beam
3. another masthead light, lower than the first, on the quarter
4. other deck lights of various hues

Might it be confusing to suddenly see this at 1:30 AM? Might you think you would pass safely astern, given no other info?

I think -- Bingo. Very plausible explanation, the first really good one we've heard

In other words -- the Fitzgerald bridge were handling the ship, just like what we saw in the Porter collision audios.

[softdown]

Mostly just theories to offer until a comprehensive analysis is available. My present theory is the advanced military electronics of the destroyer may have accidentally interfered with the cargo ship electronics.

Our government will not cover up the hard truth. We all know that.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...

I guess this must all be entirely true -- because the Crystal's VDR data will come to light in the investigation, and the Captain wouldn't say something which would be contradicted by it.

...

Let's remember that this narrative was supposedly from the Captain of the ACX Crystal to the shipping company. The shipping company may have, er, "embellished" the Captain's statement, and the Captain may have done the same. We are in a post-truth era, and there is no penalty to lying to your boss for their own benefit, nor for lying to the press. Or perhaps the Captain and company colluded to provide a false narrative to the press. There may have been some very shrewd statements made.

For instance, suppose it was much more the fault of the ACX Crystal than they want to make it appear. If the USN says, "No, what actually happened was ..." then the shipping company can then say "Prove it. Show us the data!" But the USN for many reason may not want to. They may decide that letting the world guess they were entirely at fault is better than showing the world more bridge team dysfunction, just as an example.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by softdown

Mostly just theories to offer until a comprehensive analysis is available. My present theory is the advanced military electronics of the destroyer may have accidentally interfered with the cargo ship electronics.

Our government will not cover up the hard truth. We all know that.

Your theory is interesting, but I think it's very unlikely compared to a banal wrong maneuver by the Fitz. We already saw exactly such an accident, in the Porter collision -- same kind of ship by the way.

And if your theory were true, then why would the Crystal captain make up something different?


As to our government and truth -- alas, it does not have a good record about that. But it won't be able to cover up anything in this case -- too many witnesses, and we will have VDR data at least from the Crystal. We have a foreign government involved which is unlikely to participate in any blatant falsification of the facts. I feel pretty sure that the truth will come out.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

Let's remember that this narrative was supposedly from the Captain of the ACX Crystal to the shipping company. The shipping company may have, er, "embellished" the Captain's statement, and the Captain may have done the same. We are in a post-truth era, and there is no penalty to lying to your boss for their own benefit, nor for lying to the press. Or perhaps the Captain and company colluded to provide a false narrative to the press. There may have been some very shrewd statements made.

For instance, suppose it was much more the fault of the ACX Crystal than they want to make it appear. If the USN says, "No, what actually happened was ..." then the shipping company can then say "Prove it. Show us the data!" But the USN for many reason may not want to. They may decide that letting the world guess they were entirely at fault is better than showing the world more bridge team dysfunction, just as an example.

Maybe. But I think you're forgetting about the Crystal VDR data! Which will have been grabbed by the Japanese Coast Guard as soon as the Crystal made port.

I doubt if the VDR data will leave much room for wiggling on the part of the shipping company.

Nor do I see any big reason for the shipping company to attempt to manipulate the truth -- even if some of the data from the Fitz is too sensitive to release, they will have plenty of means to prove it, if the Crystal's owner is lying.

We'll see, but my money is on the truth of the captain's statement, which will be confirmed by the data, and most likely will be acknowledged by the U.S. Navy.


Moreover, the statement of the Crystal captain rings true, and is geometrically plausible. Faced with a t-bone collision, he turned hard right -- the correct maneuver. 10 minutes from impact. It was not enough to prevent the collision, but it turned a t-bone into an oblique collision consistent with the damage we saw.

This does not exonerate Crystal, by the way. Crystal should have taken action sooner. These facts indicate a significant degree of fault on the part of the Crystal, even if the maneuvers were generally correct (standing on at first, then making a hard turn to starboard; giving warning signals).

[taxwizz]

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.[/QUOTE]

Please excuse my naivite (I think that is how ya spell it) but if a boat is running arount at 17 knots at night, has a mostly invisible radar signal, shows no lights, and was likely not running with a proper, alert watch, why are they surprised when collided with? This seems like 110% Navy fault. But I sometimes oversimplify things.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Your theory is interesting, but I think it's very unlikely compared to a banal wrong maneuver by the Fitz. We already saw exactly such an accident, in the Porter collision -- same kind of ship by the way.

And if your theory were true, then why would the Crystal captain make up something different?


As to our government and truth -- alas, it does not have a good record about that. But it won't be able to cover up anything in this case -- too many witnesses, and we will have VDR data at least from the Crystal. We have a foreign government involved which is unlikely to participate in any blatant falsification of the facts. I feel pretty sure that the truth will come out.

I agree to a point. The track of the Fitzgerald will be public knowledge. But the REAL story of what happened on the bridge, probably not. How many know what REALLY happened on the bridge of the Exxon Valdez?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

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.

Please excuse my naivite (I think that is how ya spell it) but if a boat is running arount at 17 knots at night, has a mostly invisible radar signal, shows no lights, and was likely not running with a proper, alert watch, why are they surprised when collided with? This seems like 110% Navy fault. But I sometimes oversimplify things.[/QUOTE]

Has anyone said they were not showing nav lights? I haven't heard that, and it would be very odd for them to do so in shipping lanes.

Nor does an Arleigh-Burke destroyer have a "mostly invisible radar [profile]". Less than a big container ship, but certainly visible on a commercial ship's radar from less than long ranges. I have seen various warships, including American ones, on my own boat's radar, from 10 miles and more away.

Lastly, the Crystal captain has stated that they were aware of the presence of the Fitzgerald.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Maybe. But I think you're forgetting about the Crystal VDR data! Which will have been grabbed by the Japanese Coast Guard as soon as the Crystal made port.

I doubt if the VDR data will leave much room for wiggling on the part of the shipping company.

Nor do I see any big reason for the shipping company to attempt to manipulate the truth -- even if some of the data from the Fitz is too sensitive to release, they will have plenty of means to prove it, if the Crystal's owner is lying.

We'll see, but my money is on the truth of the captain's statement, which will be confirmed by the data, and most likely will be acknowledged by the U.S. Navy.


Moreover, the statement of the Crystal captain rings true, and is geometrically plausible. Faced with a t-bone collision, he turned hard right -- the correct maneuver. 10 minutes from impact. It was not enough to prevent the collision, but it turned a t-bone into an oblique collision consistent with the damage we saw.

This does not exonerate Crystal, by the way. Crystal should have taken action sooner. These facts indicate a significant degree of fault on the part of the Crystal, even if the maneuvers were generally correct (standing on at first, then making a hard turn to starboard; giving warning signals).

I tend to agree that the Captains statement is pretty true, although ten minutes from when the turn was made until the collision makes me wonder why the ACX Crystal wasn't turned more. Perhaps "ten minutes" translates into something like "not long" in Filipino.

But there is something I am not familiar with, not having sailed for over 15 years (after 24 years at sea). How much detail is there in the VDR data? specifically, will the time of the collision itself be able to be proved? Like what if it WAS at the time of the hard right turn, and not some minutes afterwards. Would the VDR data show that.

Also, there had been a number of times I had a vessel on the bow, that if it had suddenly cut across, I would have been unable to avoid a collision. It could be argued that I should not have allowed the vessel to get so close, but there is nothing specific in the Rules about that.