US Navy destroyer collision

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

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.

You can find a brief but accurate account on VDR and S-VDR here
Voyage Data Recorder on a Ship Explained

Hopefully, soon after the collision, someone on the Crystal remembered to press the record button on the VDR. Most VDR's have 4 hard drives. Pressing the record button stores all the data on one of the hard drives, and it is protected from being over written. If the record button is not activated, data more than 12 hours old will start to be overwritten.

I would imagine that a string of Filipino expletives might pin point the time of the collision.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by nigel1

...

I would imagine that a string of Filipino expletives might pin point the time of the collision.

[estarzinger]

^^ agreed


I doubt the Crystal captain would lie about items that (he knows) could be immediately proven false with the Crystal VDR data.

This would include the starboard turn before collision. It would (probably) not include direct indication of the collision signals he claims - but could include bridge voice recordings if such signals were discussed on the bridge.

I would not be surprised if there were translation errors in the reporting.

VDR captures:
-Date and time: Referenced to UTC with an indication of the source. The source could be the GPS
-Ship’s position: In latitude and longitude with the datum used. The source could be the GPS
-Speed: Through water or speed over ground with indication of which it is. The source could be the speed log
-Heading: As indicated by the ship’s compass. The source could be the gyro compass
-Bridge audio: As picked up by one or more microphones positioned on the bridge so that conversation at or near the conning stations, radar displays, chart tables, etc., is adequately recorded. As far as practicable, the positioning of microphones should also capture intercom, public address systems and audible alarms on the bridge
-VHF communications: Relating to ship operations should be recorded
-Radar data: Electronic signal information from within one of the ship’s radar installations with recording of all the information which was actually being presented on the master display of that radar at the time of recording
-AIS data: If it is impossible to obtain radar data by using a commercially available interface then AIS target data should be recorded as a source of information regarding other ships. If radar data is recorded, AIS information may be recorded additionally as a beneficial secondary source of information on both other and own ship. AIS data is not mandatory, but an option when it is impossible to obtain radar data by means of a commercially available interface
-Additional data: Items listed by IMO with the requirements set out in resolution A.861(20) should be recorded when the data is available in accordance with the international digital interface standard NMEA0183 using approved sentence formatters. The additional data listed by IMO with the requirements in resolution A.861(20) are:
– Echo sounder
– Main alarms
– Rudder order and response
– Engine order and response
– Hull openings status
– Watertight and fire door status
– Accelerations and hull stresses
– Wind speed and direction
The additional data (any or all) shall only have to be recorded if the data are available on the bridge and the data signals are available in NMEA0183 format. Hence, the principle difference between VDR and S-VDR lays in the requirements for recording of additional data

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

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.

It is spelled naïveté.

I was not suggesting that running dark is in any way an excuse for the Fitzgerald. In my opinion it increases the responsibility of the ship running dark.

My point was and is that stealth is a characteristic, not a mode. It is not switched on and off.

Regardless, stealth design does not make a surface vessel "mostly invisible" to radar. It just reduces the radar cross section.

I don't think we have the data to say definitively that the Fitzgerald "was likely not running with a proper, alert watch" although I agree that from what we do think we know it certainly appears that something, more likely in my opinion a human process rather than equipment, went badly wrong on the Fitzgerald.

I reflect on the time it takes transportation safety boards to complete an investigation. It takes a while and I can understand why it is responsible not to dribble information out before the investigation is finished. With all the parties involved I can also understand that the various countries may well have yet to have agreed on who will be the lead investigatory body.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

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?

I happen to know.....the unspoken reason the watchkeeper was distracted was..... Ahem!!!

[Pelagic]

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.

Wow!..... So its OK to impune the honesty of the Master of the ACX Crystal but ignore the arrogant withholding of Fitzgerald's Track Data, that would immediately demonstrate what actions each vessel took in real time

Sorry but that doesn't sound impartial.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Wow!..... So its OK to impune the honesty of the Master of the ACX Crystal but ignore the arrogant withholding of Fitzgerald's Track Data, that would immediately demonstrate what actions each vessel took in real time

Sorry but that doesn't sound impartial.

Again, for whatever it may be worth --

Why should the Navy release anything, before they are ready to present the whole story? We are curious of course, but why does that impose any obligation on them? They will release it all in good time.

I'm sure the Navy is guilty as hell, but I think we can wait a little to hear the details.

I was badly burned by the press recently, when I released partial information about something, under pressure, which they then went on to misuse in a shameless way. I actually have some sympathy for the Navy here.

For whatever it may be worth.

[newhaul]

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]

Sorry but I have to ask where you recieved the information that the uss fitzgerald was traveling at 17knots and not showing any lights?
The articles I have read thusfar said that someone ( don't recall who) on the cs saw the lights of the warship prior to contact. Secondly the only speed mentioned was off the speed of the cs not the warship.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Wow!..... So its OK to impune the honesty of the Master of the ACX Crystal but ignore the arrogant withholding of Fitzgerald's Track Data, that would immediately demonstrate what actions each vessel took in real time

Sorry but that doesn't sound impartial.

Uh, I pointed out that the USN may keep quiet, whatever the owners of the ACX Crystal might say, in order to not make themselves look even worse. We live in a post-truth era.

But what if I am not impartial? So what? And I should do whatever YOU think the impartial thing to do is?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

They will release it all in good time.

I agree with most of what you wrote . . . However, I am honestly not sure Navy will in fact release their report(s). I hope they do, I think they should, but they have ways to keep it from being released which they seemed to have used in the Porter incident.

It is not looking very good for Navy - this one incident is bad, but not (apparently) learning key lessons (dont lose track of big targets on potential collision course) from the Porter is even worse. All human systems make mistakes, but you (should) try real hard to be a learning organization and not to repeat the worst ones. Navy may decide they are just better off burying it all.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I agree with most of what you wrote . . . However, I am honestly not sure Navy will in fact release their report(s). I hope they do, I think they should, but they have ways to keep it from being released which they seemed to have used in the Porter incident.

It is not looking very good for Navy - this one incident is bad, but not (apparently) learning key lessons (dont lose track of big targets on potential collision course) from the Porter is even worse. All human systems make mistakes, but you (should) try real hard to be a learning organization and not to repeat the worst ones. Navy may decide they are just better off burying it all.

Because there were fatalities, I think the Navy will have to release something. Myself, I will read it with suspicion.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Again, for whatever it may be worth --

Why should the Navy release anything, before they are ready to present the whole story? We are curious of course, but why does that impose any obligation on them? They will release it all in good time.

I'm sure the Navy is guilty as hell, but I think we can wait a little to hear the details.

I was badly burned by the press recently, when I released partial information about something, under pressure, which they then went on to misuse in a shameless way. I actually have some sympathy for the Navy here.

For whatever it may be worth.

I am probably being niaeve but we have these things called Rule of Law and International protocols for collisions within a signatories Territorial waters.
Japan has a strong case for investigating professional negligence of the Fitz but politics are allowing the US to control the release of their own ship's track, preventing independent assessment of the basic facts..

There is no security risk by releasing that data of the ships last hour track in a non combat area.
Just intimidation by the US.

What message does that send to impartial mariners worldwide?

[Saleen411]

Warship Maintained Deadly Course Despite Warnings- Cargo Ship Captain



https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...pite/23002259/

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I agree with most of what you wrote . . . However, I am honestly not sure Navy will in fact release their report(s). I hope they do, I think they should, but they have ways to keep it from being released which they seemed to have used in the Porter incident.

It is not looking very good for Navy - this one incident is bad, but not (apparently) learning key lessons (dont lose track of big targets on potential collision course) from the Porter is even worse. All human systems make mistakes, but you (should) try real hard to be a learning organization and not to repeat the worst ones. Navy may decide they are just better off burying it all.

Based on some decades of managing different organizations, I would say that it seems to me to be really pretty clear, regardless of what the final details of the collision reveal, that the Navy has got a serious and systemic problem with collision avoidance.

No one who has actually dealt with making organizations work, could ever say "they were all idiots" or "you can't make anything really sailor-proof", and leave it at that. The same human factors are present in both excellent and in poorly performing organizations, yet they don't suffer from the same type or frequency of failures. A pattern of this kind of snafus shows really clearly a serious organizational, procedural, and/or cultural problem, at the heart of it, in my opinion.

I think also that clearly the merchant fleet, for all of its problems with manning levels and quality of personnel, does not suffer from the same problem, even though of course accidents happen there too. So that's a pretty good benchmark I think for the Navy. With all the resources on Navy vessels, it ought to be possible to engineer the collision avoidance procedures in such a way that collisions practically never happen, just as the wings on commercial airliners are engineered and built in such a way that they practically never fall off.

If the Navy responds appropriately to this (as they should have, and apparently did not, after the Porter collision), then there will be a serious shakeup and deep review of the organizational, procedural, and cultural factors which led to all these accidents. I would fire the Secretary of the Navy if I were the President, I think.


Again, although it will be interesting to know the details of what happened when they finally come out, there is just no conceivable scenario which does not indicate a massive cluster flack on the bridge of the Fitzgerald, a total collapse of collision avoidance procedure. Plus or minus whatever fault there may or may not be of the Crystal is just not relevant. The Fitzgerald, with or without whatever fault of Crystal, simply should never have been within a mile of Crystal's bows, full stop, and the whole system should have been designed to make that practically impossible.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I am probably being niaeve but we have these things called Rule of Law and International protocols for collisions within a signatories Territorial waters.
Japan has a strong case for investigating professional negligence of the Fitz but politics are allowing the US to control the release of their own ship's track, preventing independent assessment of the basic facts..

There is no security risk by releasing that data of the ships last hour track in a non combat area.
Just intimidation by the US.

What message does that send to impartial mariners worldwide?

Why do you think the Navy is flouting Japanese law, or Philippine law, or International law? What intimidation?

When the law requires the release of information, it always gives you a bit of time to get the information organized. There is a mass of other information besides just the track, which needs to be released, and I think it is entirely understandable that the Navy wants a bit of time to understand what happened and get all this organized, before releasing it all in an organized fashion.

I have heard absolutely zero to indicate that the Navy is not cooperating appropriately with the Japanese and Philippine authorities. Satisfying our burning curiosity, right now, is not mandated by any law I know of. All in good time!