US Navy destroyer collision

[Pelagic]

This has me wondering also Twoblocked. I can only assume that initially the 90° turn was based on an unknown aspect of the Fitz as she was not showing lights.
I am guessing she was at first moving or drifting slowly away from the CS at the reported 3nm range.
.
Then the wake up light signal caused the Fitz to turn around to face the containership (military mindset??) and she tried to dart across the bow.

Again, without them releasing the Fitz's interactive track, we are just guessing.

[TwoBlocked]

Well, after taking another look, I can't say the ACX Crystal's course was all that steady after the turn. The plot jumps a fair amount.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

This has me wondering also Twoblocked. I can only assume that initially the 90° turn was based on an unknown aspect of the Fitz as she was not showing lights.
I am guessing she was at first moving or drifting slowly away from the CS at the reported 3nm range.
.
Then the wake up light signal caused the Fitz to turn around to face the containership (military mindset??) and she tried to dart across the bow.

Again, without them releasing the Fitz's interactive track, we are just guessing.

Haven't seen anything from the press about the USS Fitzgerald not showing lights, just wild eyed supposition. Also, the report indicates that the CS shone it's light after the NS "suddenly" changed what it was doing.

I remember, when first learning, having difficulty coordinating where the vessel was supposed to go geographically and where it should go in relation to traffic. The first is pretty much cut and dried, just some set and drift to deal with. But the latter depends on the changing movement of a number of vessels. It is two very different things that somehow must be integrated. Eventually my mindset worked toward focusing first on where I couldn't go, and then using that info to temper where I ought to go.

I am thinking the NS just put too much attention on the track and not nearly enough on the traffic.

[TwoBlocked]

Nah, the "10 minutes" was no more than a few minutes after looking at the AIS track again. Probably seemed like eternity - waiting for the the rudder to move, then the ship's head to swing, all the time watching the USS Fitzgerald get closer and closer and - bang - and then, where did the darn thing go? (Power was out, I believe, so no lights.) Maybe the ACX Crystal shouldn't have turned at all...

Just not enough info <sigh>

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

This has me wondering also Twoblocked. I can only assume that initially the 90° turn was based on an unknown aspect of the Fitz as she was not showing lights.
I am guessing she was at first moving or drifting slowly away from the CS at the reported 3nm range.
.
Then the wake up light signal caused the Fitz to turn around to face the containership (military mindset??) and she tried to dart across the bow.

Again, without them releasing the Fitz's interactive track, we are just guessing.

Do we have information that Fitzgerald was not showing lights?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Do we have information that Fitzgerald was not showing lights?

Dock actually the exact opposite one of the articles linked to earlier (a few pages ago) actually said that a crew member of the cs saw the fitzgerald's lights just before the collision.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Do we have information that Fitzgerald was not showing lights?

That is part of the frustration.... We just don't know those basic details like initial aspect....

[hpeer]

Yes this report is better but still vague in many regards. What lights did they see? How did they determine the Fitz suddenly changed. Light went from white to Green? That might have been an "oh s#*+" moment, that got translated as "suddenly."

[estarzinger]

^^ we don't know for sure, but from the way it is described, I am guessing they had radar arpa on the target. That would be "normal". They were close enough to get a good plot even on the distroyer, which might have looked like a fishing vessel on radar.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ we don't know for sure, but from the way it is described, I am guessing they had radar arpa on the target. That would be "normal". They were close enough to get a good plot even on the distroyer, which might have looked like a fishing vessel on radar.

Yes, there are large fishing inspection vessels in that area.

As to a good plot, I don't know what SOP would be on the Fitz if OOD was ordered to hold station till daylight for more exercises?

Would they do figure 8's at slow speed or just drift or meander?
Those would definitely provide a useless plot.

[sailorboy1]

the Officer of the Deck messed up and his career is over

[donradcliffe]

[QUOTE=svHyLyte;2421957

I can only guess that something that ship was transmitting--some radar or whatever--completely scrambled Otto's little brain. Accordingly, whenever we observed one of those ships on the horizon, and we seemed too often in the vicinity of Long Beach and/or San Diego, we shut Otto's power off to avoid any more excitement![/QUOTE]

I was headed up the Potomac into Washington DC, and just as I was passing under a bridge the autopilot did a crazy Ivan. I looked around and saw that I was passing the Navy Electronics Laboratory. I still believe there was somebody in that building that said 'watch this' and pushed a button...

[hpeer]

So if it's true, that Navy transmissions can mess with a ships AP, then why run it in proximity to shipping?

Proposing that the Navy may have caused the Crystals AP to malfunction does the Navy no good.

[estarzinger]

Guys, we have zero indication the Crystal ap malfunctioned.

In any case, Crystal Captain says they were manually steering when in proximity to the destroyer.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Guys, we have zero indication the Crystal ap malfunctioned.

In any case, Crystal Captain says they were manually steering when in proximity to the destroyer.

"We", ah yes 'we'* denizens of CF and such specialist websites have a much more knowledgeable base of understanding of this topic.
But out in the vast TV, press, and ether-IPland, megabytes of mal- and mis-information is blasting out from all sorts of unreliable sources. Some of those sites may even be engaged in deliberate obfuscation and misdirection.
The average citizen is having more and more trouble obtaining, let alone following the truth in such matters as this, or any for that matter (from anywhere, not just the US, which is more involved here).
Hence the more unreasonable speculations continue to propagate, and resonate with many.

So, yes, the latest 'reliably' published indications are that the Crystal's bridge watch was fully hands-on engaged with trying to interpret and react to their perception of the USS Fitzgerald's presence, whether it was sudden or not. Unfortunately, though it is still early, we have little solid information on the maneuvering, perceptions, control, and material status of the Fitzgerald yet.

I have to agree with some here (and my own stated prelim SWAG of 19Jun (elsewhere)) that it looks as if the Fitzgerald bridge messed up somehow and found itself crossing the path of the Crystal, getting struck at a relative bearing of approximately 110-120 degrees, just abaft of beam-on. If at impact the Crystal's course was ~066-070 degrees, the Fitzgerald's course was roughly ~000-010 degrees, with probably similar speeds.

* Hesitate to include lowly self with the upper echelons of master mariners around CF...but do have ~64 years on water experience on one craft or other, and few 'incidents' , and a few paper credentials.