US Navy destroyer collision

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Are you on the investigating team? How do you know they havent been given the information? Just because they haven't made it public. Doesn't mean that the people that need to know don't know.

Lol..... I think this is the 3rd time I posted a Classic piece about military arrogance on same thread.

I guess we just don't need to know that track.

https://youtu.be/kNf7g13284E

[Taichungman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Lol..... I think this is the 3rd time I posted a Classic piece about military arrogance on same thread.

I guess we just don't need to know that track.

https://youtu.be/kNf7g13284E

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You may be correct..

If the entire watch crew were all naked, greased down with baby oil and withering on the deck...Then I can't handle the truth...

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Are you on the investigating team? How do you know they havent been given the information? Just because they haven't made it public. Doesn't mean that the people that need to know don't know.

Posts #752 & 794 are indicative. Are you aware of any information that disputes this?

Who in your mind "are the people that need to know"?

Hint: This a collision of a USN ship on a routine transit in Japanese territorial waters with merchant vessel chartered by a Japanese company...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Posts #752 & 794 are indicative. Are you aware of any information that disputes this?

Who in your mind "are the people that need to know"?

Hint: This a collision of a USN ship on a routine transit in Japanese territorial waters with merchant vessel chartered by a Japanese company...

For all anyone on the outside of this event know the people that have a need to know have all enterd into a non disclosure agreement. And the statement we cant tell you . In reporter speak that means we dont know.


And then there are also all of the conspiracy theorists based reports.
All I know is if its grey I stay away.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

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

Fair enough. Like Wotname, I thought it was further south.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

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

Originally Posted by Pelagic

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

Your second link shows aerospace radar coverage - different kettle of fish. I've not had any success looking for info on VTMS or radar coverage in Japan - perhaps you can find one. Admittedly a long time back, but when I was last in Tokyo Wan, the VTMS did not extend beyond the lanes, and at the outward termination, coverage was sparse.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Your second link shows aerospace radar coverage - different kettle of fish. I've not had any success looking for info on VTMS or radar coverage in Japan - perhaps you can find one. Admittedly a long time back, but when I was last in Tokyo Wan, the VTMS did not extend beyond the lanes, and at the outward termination, coverage was sparse.

Most of those mountain sites will have different Radars for Weather (Doppler) Aerospace and below 10000 ft (ie surface)

Pre AIS, Mandatory ship reporting was quite far out so I am pretty sure they had the radar system to confirm and lable the report

[TwoBlocked]

Here is some news summaries:

Navy Fires Commander, XO from USS Fitzgerald for Fatal Collision | Military.com

Navy Releases USS Fitzgerald Supplemental Line of Duty Investigation

And here's the report from the Navy:

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/read...Fitzgerald.pdf

Haven't read all this yet.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by justwaiting

USS Fitzgerald: US Navy to discipline dozen sailors - BBC News



But still no statement about the course and positions which is what we want - the disciple is USN business.

That should be forthcoming next. The purpose of this document is to confirm that the sailors who were unfortunately injured or killed as a result of their duty.

This means DoD can begin distributing survivors benefits to the families. It is also allows the a gold star families to know that the loss of their loved one (struggling for the right words) - that their loved one did served well and do anything incorrectly related to the incident.

More nav and lessons learned info should be forthcoming but that will be a later step.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

guys,

two quick things -

(1) JT's argument is:

- illogical
- legally incorrect
- practically wrong

but he is obviously physiologically wedded to it and cannot admit he is wrong. so, at least imho, it is a waste of time debating it with him.

(2) From what I have heard 'back channel', I question whether Navy is (today) actually capable of honestly/deeply investigating itself (or allowing CG to do so). The internal culture resists it, and the skills are very thin on the ground. The Zumwalt (where you would have expected they would have put their very very best people) assessment was a debacle. The Porter assessment was hidden, but does not seem to have had the desired effect on the Fitz crew at least. The culture is very prone to blame 'a few bad apples' rather than honestly assess process. Instinctual covering up is almost always a bad indicator of an organizations ability to do a full honest self-assessment.

You may find my opinion about the proper way for this to be investigated and the problem addressed illogical or illegal, etc. but it reflects the REALITY of what is actually happening. You and others can engage in all the speculation and hissy fits, and ridiculous accusations of bullying and sharing of your "insights" of just how the USNavy "should" be handling this but that won't change what is actually happening a bit. The USNavy is investigating this and is already acting on their findings and will continue to act in order to address the weakness this and other recent accidents have revealed. I don't disagree that some serious sorting out within the USNavy is obviously needed, just disagree about who is qualified to do the sorting. You and some others seem to think it's those of us in the peanut gallery or the NTSB or some Japanese investigators who need to weigh all the facts and decide what the USNavy needs to do in order to "right their ship" but I think it must be the USNavy that needs to do this and anyone outside the USNavy doesn't really need to know the details.

I do find it humorous that you attempt to write seriously about this but then repeatedly resort to "back channel" info or "scuttlebutt" which is just a nicer and more official sounding way of saying "unfounded speculaton" or "gossip." I lived aboard in Annapolis for a winter and found that you can hear ALL kinds of things about what's going to happen in the Navy hanging around ego alley and the other downtown gathering places, and most of it turned out to be just somebody's imagination working overtime, much like any other sources of gossip. The Navy is investigating this and will release info they deem appropriate and will not release info they deem inappropriate that might provide unwanted insights into the operational mission of the Fitz or other classified information. Since any third party can't make a valid decision about the implications of releasing what might seem to an outsider like harmless info without knowing all about just what the classified info the Navy is trying to protect, and the USNavy certainly can't let you or me or some Japanese investigators be privy to classified details of this ships mission so we can decide what's appropriate or inappropriate, it has to be the USNavy that makes the decision about what to release and what not to release. You don't seem to like that but that's how it is. This is a USNavy problem, a USNavy investigation, and it will be the USNavy that decides what info regarding the track of their ship or the internal workings of their crew aboard that ship will be released and that is just how it has to be, and it doesn't matter too much whether you or other CF posters like it or not.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

Here is some news summaries:

Navy Fires Commander, XO from USS Fitzgerald for Fatal Collision | Military.com

Navy Releases USS Fitzgerald Supplemental Line of Duty Investigation

And here's the report from the Navy:

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/read...Fitzgerald.pdf

Haven't read all this yet.

Read through the report. There was no mention of de-ballasting or transferring ballast or fuel to counter the starboard list and trim down by the head (which wasn't mentioned either...). Maybe they couldn't due to lack of power, but I doubt it because they were able to run one engine. Perhaps some savvy MKs did so without it being recorded.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

You and some others seem to think it's those of us in the peanut gallery or the NTSB or some Japanese investigators who need to weigh all the facts and decide what the USNavy needs to do in order to "right their ship" but I think it must be the USNavy that needs to do this and anyone outside the USNavy doesn't really need to know the details.

jtsail - I'd actually temper my own remarks a bit having thought about it a bit more and clarify as well.

The Navy is all in all competent and has been operating for a very very long time. I don't believe anyone is intentionally trying to hide anything. Classified information doesn't belong in the public domain 99.9% of the time. In my view only the constitution and the president outrank the classification system.

Are we in agreement so far?

Having said that, there may be systemic and repeated failures around vessel situational awareness. I mention the NTSB because their whole culture IS accident investigation. That means the investigators showing up aren't doing this for the first time or even in their first decade.

I found UNCIVILIZED's remarks around ship driving to be insightful, extremely informative but also concerning.

The Navy IMO doesn't have enough of these transportation incidents to have built up the institutional knowledge to truly know how to investigate this sort of thing. It happens rarely. I suspect the review board is ad hoc and doesn't contain the same investigating members from the USS Guardian incident. I would add my view is that the Navy should lead the investigation and that they want more than anyone to get to the bottom of it.

From a methodology perspective I, just one voter, would like to see them use the NTSB playbook, have some NTSB experts on the team to lay out situational awareness, crew rest, cockpit resource management etc etc. NTSB knows exactly how to work through voice and data recorders simply because they do more of it. NTSB will approach it like the vessel operation issue it ultimately is. I want external and competent "referees" involved. I don't need the actual output - I do want to know that the investigation was conducted to that exacting level. For example, NTSB would cut exactly zero slack for optempo.

For me at least this isn't some conspiracy - I trust and respect the Navy - it is institutional capability where we have people who are full time transportation incident investigators. I'm suggesting Navy in command but "run the NTSB playbook". As a private citizen no I don't need the outcomes - but the USN does and the families of the fallen and future enlistees deserve to know that the lessons learned were extracted and applied.

Now if the NTSB looked back on the USS Guardian incident report and said:

- this report was done right
- Navy ship drivers operate at a higher standard than scheduled airline crews
- NTSB supports the methodology and the findings

then I'll shut up.

Until then I will push for more Expert Judgment.

[jtsailjt]

SecondBase, I have to agree with what you've said here. The NTSB certainly has great expertise in investigating accidents and the USNavy would do well to take advantage of that so as to get to the bottom of the true causes of this and other recent, completely unnecessary accidents. Though I don't know, I'd imagine there's a way where NTSB advisors could be employed in such a way as to avoid the compromise of any classified material (the recent torrent of leaks at all levels of government notwithstanding) but gather all pertinent info and analyze it. In my eyes, that would be completely different from the problems inherent in the USNavy releasing everything they know about this accident to the public or to a foreign investigative entity as others have suggested would be appropriate. As you say, it's the USNavy that should (and I imagine does) want their problems solved more than any of us and I hope that this accident is the straw that breaks the camels back to any institutional resistance within the Navy to changing whatever needs to be changed so that these unnecessary accidents stop happening.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

it reflects the REALITY of what is actually happening.

Perhaps that reality should change.


hanging around ego alley and the other downtown gathering places,

LOL, the Annapolis I was referring to was the school, not the town. I have a number of good friends there; and so far their back channel information has been quite accurate on this incident (bridge not under manned at time on incident, no significant bridge/CiC drill at time of incident, action to punish 'bad apples', etc).

...........

[estarzinger]

Seems like Navy does now have some public explaining to do, if they want to publicly state that ACX demonstrated poor seamanship (but offer so far zero support for that statement).

"The collision was avoidable, and both ships demonstrated poor seamanship," said the Navy's 7th Fleet in a statement.

Navy making a port turn in a head on situation, while ACX makes a correct starboard turn (later in extremis as stand-on), does not paint them in the best light to throw stones. I guess perhaps it could be argued that ACX should have acted sooner; seems like ACX thought things were ok until Navy made the port turn - but we just dont know enough.