How is it Possible That a Container Ship Collided with a USN Destroyer Near Japan?

[nybumpkin]

The way it works is that the commanding officer is presumed responsible for whatever goes wrong on his ship - completely unlike the presumption of innocence the rest of us enjoy.

As my BIL (retired after 20) put it, "One 'Oh S---' makes up for a dozen 'Atta Boys'".

[MicCanberra]

Yep, everyone remembers the mistakes, not so much the smooth sailings.

[bury me at sea]

Yep, everyone remembers the mistakes, not so much the smooth sailings.

 

When loss of life results it's difficult to consider it a mistake. Disaster seems more appropriate.

[MicCanberra]

When loss of life results it's difficult to consider it a mistake. Disaster seems more appropriate.

True, definitely a disaster for the people and their families.

[Florida Jim]

YouTube of MarineTraffic.com track playback is at:

 

 

A better track at:

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Florida Jim
remove youtube tags, and add second video.

[MicCanberra]

How bizarre, seems like they were hunting for something.

[rkacruiser]

Yes, the CO must take responsibility for this accident. As a landlubber who loves the seas and admires ALL of those who choose to work upon the ships for the benefit of all of us, I accept the Commander's situation.

 

It will take an Inquiry to answer many questions:

 

1. Was the Captain's Night Directives flawed?

2. Was the training of the Bridge team inadequate?

3. What was the role of the Executive Officer in overseeing this Bridge Team that night? Was he derelict in his duties to insure that the Fitzgerald was in capable hands?

4. A pure layman's view: Yes, the Commander is responsible. Should this put his Naval career at an end? Should he have another command? The Master of the M. S. Stockholm was awarded the position as Master of the M. S. Gripsholm for a period of time after the collision and sinking of the Andrea Doria.

5. Another pure layman's opinion: Whomever(s) were a part of the Bridge Team that night are the responsible parties for this accident. Why would any OOD allow ANY vessel, for any unapproved reason, allow his/her ship to become so close to another vessel? From what I have learned from Behind the Scenes Tours, including Bridge visits, an OOW would NEVER permit such to take place.

 

While the Captain may be left "hanging out to dry" when all is said and done, those on the Bridge that night should also be up-dating their resumes ASAP.

 

This is just my uneducated as to marine affairs opinion, but a very concerned American citizen. I would appreciate learning others informed comments concerning my comments.

Edited June 20, 2017 by rkacruiser

[Florida Jim]

How bizarre, seems like they were hunting for something.

 

I wish one of the major news organizations would purchase the data from MarineTraffic and plot it up with local time stamps.

 

I attempted to read the time stamp from the video, and came up with this:

 

https://wordpress25013.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/rank-speculation-on-uss-fitzgerald-acx-crystal

[navybankerteacher]

 

...

 

While the Captain may be left "hanging out to dry" when all is said and done, those on the Bridge that night should also be up-dating their resumes ASAP.

 

This is just my uneducated as to marine affairs opinion, but a very concerned American citizen. I would appreciate learning others informed comments concerning my comments.

 

Simply put (speaking from having stood many watches as OOD underway), I have a hard time understanding how the more maneuverable, better manned, higher speed Fitzgerald allowed such a close approach to develop in the first place.

 

Yes, the OOD seems to have demonstrated poor judgement, and may need to consider "updating ... resume". But it was the CO who left his night orders and decided that the OOD was competent to follow them.

 

That is the way it works.

 

Of course, until inquiries are completed, it is impossible to assign responsibility - and, personally, I would like to see a finding that the Fitzgerald was in no way at fault.

[broberts]

I am correct in assuming that the Japanese Coast Guard will be investigating?

 

Will the US Navy investigation share data with the civilian investigation?

 

Is there a normal / average length of time for these sorts of investigations?

[spookwife]

As my BIL (retired after 20) put it, "One 'Oh S---' makes up for a dozen 'Atta Boys'".

 

 

 

Pretty sure that's a required Sailorism from LPO on up....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[mnocket]

I wish one of the major news organizations would purchase the data from MarineTraffic and plot it up with local time stamps.

 

I attempted to read the time stamp from the video, and came up with this:

 

https://wordpress25013.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/rank-speculation-on-uss-fitzgerald-acx-crystal

 

 

It's still not clear where along the recorded track the collision took place. I just read a news article that claims that according to Coast Guard interviews with the ACX Crystal's crew, the collision took place right where the ship made the initial 90 degree turn to starboard. The ACX then continued on an Easterly heading until making a u-turn to return to the scene of the collision. Here's the relevant quote.....

 

On Saturday, both the US Navy and the Japanese Coast Guard said the accident occurred at 2.20am, leading to some experts theorizing that the series of unusual turns performed by the Crystal before that time may have caused the accident.

However, after interviewing the crews, the Coast Guard say the accident occurred at 1.30am and that the unusual maneuvers were the result of the Crystal returning to the scene to confirm a collision - and that is why it reported the accident at 2.20am.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4617742/Shambolic-start-probe-USS-Fitzgerald-collision.html#ixzz4kVpM3Ft2

 

[MicCanberra]

It seems to get more complicated as time goes by.

[chengkp75]

While I agree with much of what the Jane's "expert" states in the Daily Mail article, I will disagree with him on his contention that a "computer was driving the ship", and the crew was asleep.

 

Today's ships control the propulsion engine from the bridge, and when in bridge control, the engine will at all times attempt to meet the commands from the bridge. So, if the telegraph is in "full ahead" position, even after striking something, which will cause the ship to slow or stop, as soon as the obstruction is cleared, the ship will accelerate back to full speed.

 

It is extremely common for ships to operate 90% of the time on autopilot, and after the collision, the autopilot, if still engaged, would bring the ship back to its set heading.

 

As I've stated before, since 2012, all ships over 3000 tons must be equipped with a BNWAS system that alarms if the bridge watch is incapacitated (not moving) or has left the bridge for too long. This will even alarm if the bridge watch is active in navigating the vessel, but is spending too much time outside on the bridge wings, since these areas are not covered by motion sensors. BNWAS has three operating modes: Automatic, which engages whenever the autopilot is engaged; Manual on, which is on all the time, even when the autopilot is off, and many ships operate in this mode all the time based on their ISM systems; and Manual off, which is turned off completely. While BNWAS is able to be turned off (in port there is no one on the bridge, so the alarm would be going off all the time), the status of the BNWAS system is linked to the VDR (Voyage Data Recorder, or the "black box"). Therefore, any ship operating at sea with the BNWAS turned off, which would have to be the case for the "crew to be sleeping and a computer driving the ship", would be found to be in violation of the flag state laws, the class regulations, and hence would be operating without insurance and would be found liable for any damages that occurred.

 

I know of no ship, country, or class society that allows for unattended bridge operations. They are trying to go that way, but even then the requirement would be for an "operator" on shore to be monitoring the vessel at all times.

[SmoothFlying]

Simply put (speaking from having stood many watches as OOD underway), I have a hard time understanding how the more maneuverable, better manned, higher speed Fitzgerald allowed such a close approach to develop in the first place.

 

Yes, the OOD seems to have demonstrated poor judgement, and may need to consider "updating ... resume". But it was the CO who left his night orders and decided that the OOD was competent to follow them.

 

That is the way it works.

 

Of course, until inquiries are completed, it is impossible to assign responsibility - and, personally, I would like to see a finding that the Fitzgerald was in no way at fault.

 

Hoo Boy !!! Would love to be in the room of this Article 39A Board of Inquiry and hear the OOD's response about HOW and WHY a 300 TON container ship was able too even APPROACH, much less, STRIKE a U.S.. Naval vessel without being detected ?? Hmmm..? IF, he/she is found guilty one wonders,would said OOD be allowed to work off said damages fine during his sentence OR would he be kept in service and the damages fine be 'payroll deductable'? Also, I'm sure the Captain (who was probably asleep in his sea quarters) will receive some of written reprimand. Where I retired from, we called it,' Taken to the woodshed and having your britches pulled down and getting pencil whipped'. I also agree with NavyB and hopefully the evidence will prove the entire bridge staff was NOT at fault.

 

Mac

[NurseDave]

Sure love when chengkp75 posts!

[nybumpkin]

Of course, until inquiries are completed, it is impossible to assign responsibility - and, personally, I would like to see a finding that the Fitzgerald was in no way at fault.

Me too - particularly since I have a feeling that my son may know the OOD.

[LA_CA_GAL]

Maybe the Russians were responsible.

[MicCanberra]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. There is a conspiracy here and we will keep looking until we find one. :p

[tatt2ed]

Makes me kinda unsettled that this kind of thing can actually happen. Neither ships radar saw the other? Unlikely. The only plausible explanation is that the bridge crew on both ships weren't paying attention for an extended period of time. Don't modern ships have collision avoidance alarms?

 

If this could happen to a USN Destroyer, it's not out of the question that it could happen to a cruise ship. Makes one wonder.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-naval-vessel-collides-merchant-ship-southwest-japan-n773521

Already has happened, took the whole front off the cruise ship.

[navybankerteacher]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. There is a conspiracy here and we will keep looking until we find one. :p

 

I hope that happy face is saying "I'm kidding".

[MicCanberra]

I hope that happy face is saying "I'm kidding".

Yeah, I am, but for some I fear they may be serious.

[TheOldBear]

New article posted at USNI Proceedings - When a Big Ocean gets Small

[bury me at sea]

That article gave me chills. I don't think cruise ships traverse the type of channel described. I've watched from the aft as our ship backed into Mahogany Bay and marveled at the control it took and the skill that must be involved, all in broad daylight, barely moving.

 

Going back to the first post expressing incredulity that this could happen, I initially shared that feeling. This article left me amazed it doesn't happen more often.

 

Again, my condolences to the families and shipmates of the lost crew.

[navybankerteacher]

New article posted at USNI Proceedings - When a Big Ocean gets Small

 

If you want to understand the scene, you should read this article - a clear picture of how the CO's authority (but never his responsibility) is delegated.