US Navy destroyer collision

[estarzinger]

^^ unfortunately, the history of asymmetric warfair is pretty depressing reading for the "sophisticated" side . . . . poorly armed but truly determined local guys will often eventually defeat better armed but less determined occupiers.

It may be that the only high probability way for the sophisticated guys to "win" is to commit total genocide.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by lancelot9898

..... That is what we celebrate today, July 4th, and we must never become complacent.

I think that with N Korea today firing IBM's from mobile launchers, we will not be allowed to become complacent under this President.

I just hope the truth about the Fitz collision does not get swept under the rug for..."the greater good"....we have a lot to learn from this tragic and baffling incident

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is assuming the whistle works in the first place.
I have taken command of a number of large offshore tugs where maintenance and routine has gotten a bit slack, and found that the whistle does not function.
The shuttle valve is prone to sticking if the whistle is not operated on a frequent basis.
It should be tested as part of the pre-arrival and pre-departure checks, and I have always tried to continue the tradition of sounding the whistle at midday when circumstances permit.

[Pelagic]

Not only Tugs Nigel, it is a common problem on most ships (except steamships)

[Captain Bill]

From all of the evidence it clearly looks like the Fitz was crossing from port to starboard, even if the original angle is somewhat ambiguous. The freighter determined that it was in danger of a collision and turned to starboard striking the Fitz at a significant angle as the damage to the freighter bow was only on its port side. It would seem to me that if the freighter had not turned at all it might have passed astern of the Fitz and if it had turned to port even slightly there is almost no chance it would have collided. I have read many times that one should not turn to the direction a vessel is approaching from, but have never understood the logic if that. If one turns in the direction of the other vessel it shortens the period of danger of a collision. Large vessels cannot take speed off quickly and turning in their direction of travel only prolongs the danger. Obviously if you have waited so long to maneuver that you are going to collide anyway turning towards increases the energy of the collision, but if you are trying to avoid a collision why not turn towards. I was once involved in a minor traffic accident when a car coming in the opposite lane lost control on a rain slick road and crossed into my lane at a high angle , maybe 60-70 degrees crossing from left to right so I turned to the left to avoid him while hitting the brakes. As it turned out my right headlight caught his rear bumper and tore it off, while he left the right side of the roadway into a ditch. All in all minor damage and no one injured. The investigating policeman criticized me for turning to the left and said I should have turned right. considering that my car did not come to a stop until nearly 30 feet past the other car if I would have turned right I probably would have t-boned him in the passenger door at a significant speed, much to the detriment of the young lady sitting in that seat. The freighter captain turned to starboard much to the detriment of those 7 sailors on the Fitz. I don't know how fast the freighter turns but my reading of AIS data from freighters that seemed to be trying to set up collisions with me is that they turn about 3 degrees per second so even if that number is rounded up from 2.5 degrees a 90 degree turn takes about 35 seconds. If you have to turn more than 90 degrees you probably should have turned the other direction. In aircraft this decision is automated in a system called TCAS and instruments in both planes tell the pilot which way to steer to avoid a collision. This system works well in 3 dimensions, at high speeds, and has been around for several decades. I'm somewhat amazed that a simpler 2 dimensional system was not included in the class a AIS standard.

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

From all of the evidence it clearly looks like the Fitz was crossing from port to starboard, even if the original angle is somewhat ambiguous. The freighter determined that it was in danger of a collision and turned to starboard striking the Fitz at a significant angle as the damage to the freighter bow was only on its port side. It would seem to me that if the freighter had not turned at all it might have passed astern of the Fitz and if it had turned to port even slightly there is almost no chance it would have collided. I have read many times that one should not turn to the direction a vessel is approaching from, but have never understood the logic if that. If one turns in the direction of the other vessel it shortens the period of danger of a collision. Large vessels cannot take speed off quickly and turning in their direction of travel only prolongs the danger. Obviously if you have waited so long to maneuver that you are going to collide anyway turning towards increases the energy of the collision, but if you are trying to avoid a collision why not turn towards. I was once involved in a minor traffic accident when a car coming in the opposite lane lost control on a rain slick road and crossed into my lane at a high angle , maybe 60-70 degrees crossing from left to right so I turned to the left to avoid him while hitting the brakes. As it turned out my right headlight caught his rear bumper and tore it off, while he left the right side of the roadway into a ditch. All in all minor damage and no one injured. The investigating policeman criticized me for turning to the left and said I should have turned right. considering that my car did not come to a stop until nearly 30 feet past the other car if I would have turned right I probably would have t-boned him in the passenger door at a significant speed, much to the detriment of the young lady sitting in that seat. The freighter captain turned to starboard much to the detriment of those 7 sailors on the Fitz. I don't know how fast the freighter turns but my reading of AIS data from freighters that seemed to be trying to set up collisions with me is that they turn about 3 degrees per second so even if that number is rounded up from 2.5 degrees a 90 degree turn takes about 35 seconds. If you have to turn more than 90 degrees you probably should have turned the other direction. In aircraft this decision is automated in a system called TCAS and instruments in both planes tell the pilot which way to steer to avoid a collision. This system works well in 3 dimensions, at high speeds, and has been around for several decades. I'm somewhat amazed that a simpler 2 dimensional system was not included in the class a AIS standard.

In the list of what we do not know is if the Navy vessel started to act after the commercial vessel had started to take avoidance actions. Therefor it may have been the action of the NAvy vessel that was "much to the detriment of those 7 sailors on the Fitz".

I have no doubt that both vessels will be found to be at fault in some thing they did or did not do at some stage. Who was most at fault at the various stages of the accident remains to be seen.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

From all of the evidence it clearly looks like the Fitz was crossing from port to starboard, even if the original angle is somewhat ambiguous. The freighter determined that it was in danger of a collision and turned to starboard striking the Fitz at a significant angle as the damage to the freighter bow was only on its port side. It would seem to me that if the freighter had not turned at all it might have passed astern of the Fitz and if it had turned to port even slightly there is almost no chance it would have collided. I have read many times that one should not turn to the direction a vessel is approaching from, but have never understood the logic if that. If one turns in the direction of the other vessel it shortens the period of danger of a collision. Large vessels cannot take speed off quickly and turning in their direction of travel only prolongs the danger. Obviously if you have waited so long to maneuver that you are going to collide anyway turning towards increases the energy of the collision, but if you are trying to avoid a collision why not turn towards. I was once involved in a minor traffic accident when a car coming in the opposite lane lost control on a rain slick road and crossed into my lane at a high angle , maybe 60-70 degrees crossing from left to right so I turned to the left to avoid him while hitting the brakes. As it turned out my right headlight caught his rear bumper and tore it off, while he left the right side of the roadway into a ditch. All in all minor damage and no one injured. The investigating policeman criticized me for turning to the left and said I should have turned right. considering that my car did not come to a stop until nearly 30 feet past the other car if I would have turned right I probably would have t-boned him in the passenger door at a significant speed, much to the detriment of the young lady sitting in that seat. The freighter captain turned to starboard much to the detriment of those 7 sailors on the Fitz. I don't know how fast the freighter turns but my reading of AIS data from freighters that seemed to be trying to set up collisions with me is that they turn about 3 degrees per second so even if that number is rounded up from 2.5 degrees a 90 degree turn takes about 35 seconds. If you have to turn more than 90 degrees you probably should have turned the other direction. In aircraft this decision is automated in a system called TCAS and instruments in both planes tell the pilot which way to steer to avoid a collision. This system works well in 3 dimensions, at high speeds, and has been around for several decades. I'm somewhat amazed that a simpler 2 dimensional system was not included in the class a AIS standard.

The reason why you are supposed to turn to starboard -- and it is written in black and white in the Rules -- is so that the two vessels won't maneuver into each other in case the other vessel also maneuvers at the last moment.

If Crystal had turned to port, and the Fitz had turned to stb, AS SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO, it would have been really bad.

If you have an absolutely steady bearing, I suppose your turn will be somewhat more effective if you turn to pass astern. But because of the risk of vessels maneuvering into each other, it's not done that way -- everyone is supposed to turn to stb when in extremis, unless there is some good reason not to -- e.g. you just can't turn that way, bearing is slightly increasing for a vessel to your port, etc.

[hpeer]

Kind of off topic but.....they used to do a tug boat serenade in St. John's harbor some Sundays. They are really rig support vessels. Some guy did the score and passed it around to the Captains. Each vessel had a different note to play.

Kinda cool.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's why the US Navy has lots of ships and sailors. Winning a war must not depend on one and only one ship. People screw up sometimes and machines break. A war strategy that depends on perfection from man and machine is guaranteed to fail. Which is why numbers of vessels and crew members determines the outcome of many conflicts.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by nigel1

This is assuming the whistle works in the first place.
I have taken command of a number of large offshore tugs where maintenance and routine has gotten a bit slack, and found that the whistle does not function.
The shuttle valve is prone to sticking if the whistle is not operated on a frequent basis.
It should be tested as part of the pre-arrival and pre-departure checks, and I have always tried to continue the tradition of sounding the whistle at midday when circumstances permit.

Ha, had the opposite problem once, damned horn wouldn't shut off after the 12 noon toot, anchored in Gage roads just outside Fremantle.

It was very embarrassing. Took the engineers about 10 minutes to get up the funnel and turn off the compressed air. We had to call all ships and the port and advise we were not in distress.

I think I said earlier, we almost never used 5 short blasts at sea. Usually just light flashes from the Aldis Lamp. I guess if another ship got really close we would use it if we still had our witts. But I am not at all surprised crystal didn't sound five short blasts.

[Jim Cate]

I think I said earlier, we almost never used 5 short blasts at sea. Usually just light flashes from the Aldis Lamp

'

Ben, do merchant ships still have Aldis lamps and folks who are trained to use them? I (perhaps naively) had imagined that they disappeared along with semaphore flags!

Jim

[Snowpetrel]

Ha, we had to learn morse by light to 6 words per minute. I found this very hard.

I think it has been pulled fairly recently.

I am guessing modern ships still carry the aldis lamp or a more modern equivalent, though I might be wrong on this. I didn't see one on the last ship I was on come to think of it. Though it might have been stored away someplace.

[Astrid]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Ha, we had to learn morse by light to 6 words per minute. I found this very hard.

I think it has been pulled fairly recently.

I am guessing modern ships still carry the aldis lamp or a more modern equivalent, though I might be wrong on this. I didn't see one on the last ship I was on come to think of it. Though it might have been stored away someplace.

Canadian Navy still does as far as I know.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Astrid

Canadian Navy still does as far as I know.

Yes, I can envision situations where silent and local comms between warships would be useful, even in this day of encrypted sat comms. But my query was specifically aimed at merchant vessels.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Ha, we had to learn morse by light to 6 words per minute. I found this very hard.

I think it has been pulled fairly recently.

I am guessing modern ships still carry the aldis lamp or a more modern equivalent, though I might be wrong on this. I didn't see one on the last ship I was on come to think of it. Though it might have been stored away someplace.

Interesting! While I can still copy between 10 and 15 wpm of morse on ham radio, the totally different set of synapses that would be needed for light flashes would be a tough thing to develop. I (as a card carrying WAFI) can't see too many applications for Aldis comms between merchant vessels these days.

Jim

PS Did semaphore come into the training too?