Visit our Popular Forums

Lodesman · 17-08-2017, 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiwiKen

The Stand on vessel has the right of way

PS - Many years ago I taught this at a Marine Training Institution

What institution taught you this?

Lodesman · 17-08-2017, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I am 99% sure that Japan Marine Traffic Authority already has a Radar Track history of all vessels in their coastal waters

I'm curious about this - unless there's a VTMS, there is no good reason for operating a radar station that covers coastal waters. Is there one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I'm guessing if it was an Iranian or Russian Warship operating inside Japanese territorial waters, ..they would not be allowed to leave! [emoji35]

Is it? From the various bits I've seen it looked like they were at least 12 NM from any land - I don't know what the baselines do there. Certainly it would be within the contiguous zone, but I think warships in general have a certain amount of immunity.

**newhaul** · 17-08-2017, 13:04

Perhaps they were distracted by an unseen contact they were tracking

SecondBase · 17-08-2017, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Perhaps they were distracted by an unseen contact they were tracking

Maybe but still Unsat. With a crew of 350 they should always have navigation situational awareness. This function should be isolated (even duplicated) away from tactical activities.

Applying Cockpit Resource Management procedures is the way to protect future sailors and merchant crews as well.

To respond to some other posts there is no need for disclosure of classified information. If that was not a factor that should probably be stated.

Finally I suspect the reason this board has so many posts, even excited posts, on this topic is that cruising sailors are incredulous that this kind of loss of orientation could occur. Even though we've all been there at one point or another on our own boating.

I know it will hurt to bring in the NTSB but time to rip off the band aid.

Pelagic · 17-08-2017, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I'm curious about this - unless there's a VTMS, there is no good reason for operating a radar station that covers coastal waters. Is there one?

Is it? From the various bits I've seen it looked like they were at least 12 NM from any land - I don't know what the baselines do there. Certainly it would be within the contiguous zone, but I think warships in general have a certain amount of immunity.

The collision happened only 10nm off the Japanese coastline and approaching major Port.

This area would most definitely be under radar surveillance
https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-ne...crystal-japan/

Pelagic · 17-08-2017, 15:15

This link shows Japanese radar coverage, which is probably one of the best in the World.
http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=4011

redsky49 · 17-08-2017, 16:01

In recent report, Washington Post says Captain, Chief Mate and many others disciplined/removed from duty. Details to come.

**hpeer** · 17-08-2017, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsky49

In recent report, Washington Post says Captain, Chief Mate and many others disciplined/removed from duty. Details to come.

This discipline should go UP stream, not down.

Failure of senior leadership.

**Wotname** · 17-08-2017, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The collision happened only 10nm off the Japanese coastline and approaching major Port.

This area would most definitely be under radar surveillance
https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-ne...crystal-japan/

Thanks for this post; I have been lazy in not following the correct details and kept thinking the collision occur further off-shore.

Cormorant · 17-08-2017, 16:28

Some more on the disciplining of sailors at fault:

Dozen U.S. sailors to be punished for June collision: Navy | Reuters

"About a dozen U.S. sailors are expected to face punishment...."

Three Sisters · 17-08-2017, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wotname

Thanks for this post; I have been lazy in not following the correct details and kept thinking the collision occur further off-shore.

56 miles according to this article.

USS Fitzgerald crew made ‘slew’ of mistakes before deadly crash: report | New York Post

**Wotname** · 17-08-2017, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Obviously?! I believe that most accident investigations DO attempt to gather ALL the information regarding the accident that they possibly can. Otherwise, what's their purpose? Can you point to a single one where that was not the case?

The USNavy isn't attempting to avoid their share of responsibility for this accident. They obviously screwed up by putting themselves in the path of a large vessel that couldn't avoid hitting them even though they tried. What's left to investigate other than the details regarding why the USNavy ship erred and was so oblivious to the danger of collision? For their own reasons the USN doesn't want to go into that publicly. No doubt a serious problem exists but it's their problem to fix and theres nothing to be gained by the Japanese or anyone else outside the USN digging into just what was going on aboard the Fitz that caused them to screw up so badly. Time for everyone to move on.

I would suggest in all accidents involving military assets, some classified material is withheld (or only released to a court in camera). This does not suggest all other information should be withheld.

While I am mindful of estarzinger's post above (#839), are you willing to respond directly to the questions posed below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wotname

......

1. Who do you think are the "proper" investigators when a collision occurs between a USN vessel and a Philippine-flagged container ship chartered by a Japanese company, 10 miles of the coast of Japan in busy navigational waters?

2. Who should / would investigate a collision between say a French or British Naval warship and a Philippine-flagged container ship chartered by an American company, 10 miles of the coast of the USA in busy navigational waters?