US Navy destroyer collision

[hpeer]

Guys,

Thanks for all the info. But I was thinking more along the lines of the Porter incident, very basic, they didn't see it.

To someone else's point about them being warriors (destroyers) that may be true. But they are also mariners, and they need to be able to wear both hats, if not at once then change attitude as appropriate.

I'm thinking that in the "warrior" attitude they ignore AIS for obvious reasons, but that night they were "mariners" and should have used it.

No doubt my thinking is shaped by the Porter. It's the precedent we have.

[Snowpetrel]

^^ Interesting, Thats exactly how I like to run things as well. With 3 minute trails. Or history plots if the software enables them properly.

Some 'experts' seem to prefer relative motion and relative vectors as a default but I find ground stabilised true Vectors much better as long as I can easily adjust the vector length.

[double u]

...some "warriors" to nearly get sunk by a big, fat, lumbering cargo...!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

^^ Interesting, Thats exactly how I like to run things as well. With 3 minute trails. Or history plots if the software enables them properly.

Some 'experts' seem to prefer relative motion and relative vectors as a default but I find ground stabilised true Vectors much better as long as I can easily adjust the vector length.

Being from the age of "grease pencil on plotting head", I typically default to RM, but when I do a periodic check of the radar, will toggle TM to confirm my appreciation of the other ships' aspects. I only use trails in open ocean - generally set for 6 min. as a confirmation that ARPA is giving me an accurate vector.

[hpeer]

A thoughtful article even if it does not provide specific information.

https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceed...ean-gets-small

And something about damage and repairs.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...tion-continues

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by hpeer

A thoughtful article even if it does not provide specific information.

https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceed...ean-gets-small

^^ Very interesting hpeer, particularly this part. Lots of pressure on the young officers.

captain alone is responsible for “qualifying” the “Officers of the Deck” (OODs). These are the young officers or very experienced chief petty officers, who are charged to act in the CO’s stead, when he or she is not in the pilot house. These OODs may be salty, or they may be green as grass. Only the captain can decide when they are ready to stand the watch as OOD. But, you must understand that there is pressure to qualify officers for this watch, for to not qualify a young officer as OOD is a death warrant for that young officer’s career. If you are not an OOD, you are of no use to the fleet. Actually, to not qualify an officer can sometimes get a captain the sort of attention that is unwanted, and to not qualify more than one officer, regardless of their capability or capacity, is a recipe for trouble. The expectation is that the captain will train and qualify all the officers assigned under his or her command. Not to do so will cause some to think that the problem lies with the captain, and not the quality of the officers who fail to qualify.

There are, however, some unfortunate “solutions.” The worst thing a captain can do is to wait until just before an officer transfers and qualify him or her, effectively passing on the problem to the next ship. Or another poor action is to qualify an officer as OOD, but never have him or her to stand the watch. Sadly, not every OOD is a good and able one.

The merchant system is quite different. The OOW are independantly certified, though a wise captain would quietly assess competance and ensure familiarity with the ship before completely trusting the OOW.

It also seems like the captain of a destroyer would get pretty badly fatigued with those sort of standing orders in heavy traffic (call me if any ship is within 5 miles). Most of our masters standing orders were 2 miles offshore and 1 mile CPA in heavy traffic zones, we had complete freedom to manouver as needed to maintain the reqired CPA.

Also interesting remarks about the moon. I aways hated a bright moon at sea, it made it much harder to see any ships lights, especially anything in or near the moons bearing, when the glare off the water does a good jib of obscuring any lights.

[hpeer]

Yes, a poster over on gCaptain had made similar comments about the training regime and its pitfalls.

Makes you think.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

01:15 AM Target Red 40..... apparently no collision concern)
01:20 AM Target starts moving (Implies stationary before)
Final 10 minutes.... Starts Flashing Lights....
Then emergency turn to Starboard
WHY NO DANGER SIGNAL WITH HORN reported?? as it is much more effective than lights.

I had asked this question earlier about why the containership did not sound the Danger signal?

I guess working the BC coast with lots of Fog, it was emphasized in Marine College to use your horn as a wake up call if not sure of a targets intentions.

This article today happens to discuss using the horn


http://gcaptain.com/five-short-blast...danger-signal/

[estarzinger]

^^

Light is much more directional/targeted. The targeted vessels knows it's them being talked to and they know where the signal is coming from. Sound signal is more ambiguous, especially with a bunch of fishing vessels around.

Also, just don't know if they hear sound in air conditioned pilot house - supposed to but . . . .

Tugs seem to use light signals a lot. I'v been "lit up" by tugs several times, not 5 flashes, more just a "here I am, make sure you see me" communication.

Per colregs they "should have" made sound in addition to the light . . . And they may have . . We have such a small extract from the captain' report.

[hpeer]

Yes, I've been lite up also. Damn hard to miss.

For me that's the most interesting thing about this accident, how did the Fitz interpret the light signal? Seems like that would be a sure fire communication.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by hpeer

lite up . . . . . Damn hard to miss.

yea, it is why I have changed my 'most likely scenario'.

I started out thinking they just did not see Crystal, until they were hit (because no alarms), but that seems almost impossible. So I am now on the "OOD froze" as the most plausible failure.

I remember we were going down the Brazil coast and had a crossing situation with a local coastal freighter - we were stand on but he just did not seem to be changing course. We tried vhf and air horn, and lit up our mainsail with our spotlight (which often worked to illuminate us and get a commercial bridge to recognize what we were), but none worked in this case - so I pointed the spot at their bridge and I think it woke someone up (or got them out of a playboy magazine) as they made an immediate pretty hard turn. I usually try not to do that, so I don't kill their night vision, but our spot is relatively weak compared to theirs so actually probably would not effect their vision all that much.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Per colregs they "should have" made sound in addition to the light . . . And they may have . . We have such a small extract from the captain' report.

True, they 'may have' but my point is they "should have"

The reason Colregs emphasizes sound is that no one may be looking out the window. So light alone will not work.

The repeated use of the "wake up" danger 5 blasts as you get closer will hopefully attract someone to a window.

The range of sound signal as well as the low frequency of an approved horn for that tonnage is pretty impressive

[estarzinger]

^^ we agree "should have"

But I would point out that sound alone has and does also fail ocasionally. Humans have a great capability to be oblivious at 2am and it is hard to fix stupid/frozen/incompetent (they must be blowing that horn at someone else!). And 3 Nim is a pretty long way for a horn, but not that far for two vessels doing about 15.

I remember myself getting into two awkward situations at 2 am in TSS's. We (both vessels) managed to dodge each other, but I know I missed signals that I should have understood (better/faster).

[lancelot9898]

This accident does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about our military preparedness when a commercial ship accidently almost sinks one of our most sophisticated assets. There are determined people out there that want to take on the most advanced military the world has ever known and if we sit here and think that it can never happen then we would be wrong, for centuries ago a rag tag group of determined individuals took on the most powerful military of its day and won. That is what we celebrate today, July 4th, and we must never become complacent.

[Pelagic]

Yes, the "horn" is just a side curiosity as the captain said he signaled to get attention "after the Fitz started moving".

That on the face of it would indicate awareness but not effective action....

Frozen or Incompetence, either way it boggles the mind that a fully operational attack ship could be run over by a lumbering container ship.