U.S. Navy destroyer, Philippines merchant vessel collide off Japan

[Penicillin]

Sure fire way to deep six a career in the Navy. 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Mansell said:

Never assume you have the right of way at sea......in fact assume the opposite. The destroyer captain will be losing his command asap. Merchant ships have minimal people on watch at any time. And a warship is pretty small compared to them. I hope they find the crew members....but probably not. Sad day for the navy.

 

assume the opposit? OK as long as we talk about assumptions and not behaviour

 

but having the right of way and start behaving like you don't have the right of way scares the shit out of the ships

around you, causes confusion and is typically something which may lead to crashes

 

the merchant ship should have at least two people on the bridge, navigator and lookout (many tend to skip the lookout  though, not good)

navy vessels are typically the opposite, bridge packed with people, does not make a good working environment

when navigating in heavy traffic and/or restricted waters

(there was an interesting example of that some years back in the waterway between Chessapeeke and Wash DC,

 a US navy training cutter was cut in two by an oncoming container vessel (I think it was))

 

navy officers are often not very good navigators or ship handlers, navy ships are costly to run and operate, hence, they tend to spend an awfull lot of time relaxing in harbours

not giving the navigators sufficient training and experience and practice with ship handling

 

 

 

[55Jay]

 

 

[iReason]

USS Fitzgerald collision: Trump criticised for leaving key posts unfilled

Lack of navy secretary and ambassador to Japan could hamper communications in search for missing crew,

says former official (sub-title)

 

"Donald Trump has been criticised for delays in appointing a navy secretary and ambassador to Japan,

leaving a communications vacuum as the countries continued their search for seven missing sailors off the east coast of Japan."

 

"The US has been without an ambassador to Japan since Caroline Kennedy left Tokyo in January."

 

"Brandon Friedman, a former Obama administration official and co-founder of the McPherson Square Group, a strategic communications firm in Washington, pointed to the absence of an ambassador and navy secretary – two officials who would be expected to take a lead in liaising between the US navy, and Japanese and US government officials during the search."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/17/uss-fitzgerald-collision-trump-criticised-for-leaving-key-posts-unfilled

[off road pat]

3 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

Americans: This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE 
           UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS 
           AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. 
           THAT'S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE 
           SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

you beat me to it, I was searching the net for this !!!!!

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed.  Other off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[Thakkar]

3 hours ago, iReason said:

USS Fitzgerald collision: Trump criticised for leaving key posts unfilled

Lack of navy secretary and ambassador to Japan could hamper communications in search for missing crew,

says former official (sub-title)

 

"Donald Trump has been criticised for delays in appointing a navy secretary and ambassador to Japan,

leaving a communications vacuum as the countries continued their search for seven missing sailors off the east coast of Japan."

 

"The US has been without an ambassador to Japan since Caroline Kennedy left Tokyo in January."

 

"Brandon Friedman, a former Obama administration official and co-founder of the McPherson Square Group, a strategic communications firm in Washington, pointed to the absence of an ambassador and navy secretary – two officials who would be expected to take a lead in liaising between the US navy, and Japanese and US government officials during the search."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/17/uss-fitzgerald-collision-trump-criticised-for-leaving-key-posts-unfilled

The USS Fitzgerald might sink off Japan and the U.S. President can't call our Ambassador or our Navy Secretary because we have neither

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/us-navy-destroyer-collides-with-merchant-ship-japan/index.html

[DPKANKAN]

Call me old fashioned but I thought that ships had this thing called 'radar' which shows what is going on with other ships in the area?!?!

[fxe1200]

6 hours ago, cruisemonkey said:

 

At this point everything is speculation. However, it's a safe bet to say either a Filipino master mariner or a U.S. commander will be sailing a desk from now on.

...probably both.

[DoctorG]

Court martial for somebody coming up. 

[nasanews]

Could people be more stupid than collide at sea!

[IAMHERE]

1 hour ago, DoctorG said:

Court martial for somebody coming up. 

If it was a bus driver what got 7 passengers killed there would be hell to pay. If the captain just loses his job he is getting off very lucky.

[Searat7]

With the navigation systems on ships today you can lock onto other ships well in advance to determine if there is any possibility of collision so that a change of course can be made if necessary. Looking at the point of collision on the destroyer it appears that the US vessel had the right of way.  Results of the investigation should be interesting but some should lose their command or positions.

[cruisemonkey]

9 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

brake failure?

Only Thai ship captains can claim brake failure. 

[Gulfsailor]

56 minutes ago, Searat7 said:

With the navigation systems on ships today you can lock onto other ships well in advance to determine if there is any possibility of collision so that a change of course can be made if necessary. Looking at the point of collision on the destroyer it appears that the US vessel had the right of way.  Results of the investigation should be interesting but some should lose their command or positions.

I assume you meant to say that the Philippines vessel had right of way. 

But just 30 minutes prior to the collision the PH ship made a strange U turn and then nearly straight into the destroyer, with only a last minute adjustment in course, hence the damage on the PH vessel just on the port side of its bow. After the collision the PH vessel turned again back on its original course heading northnortheast. Very strange the erratic behavior of the container vessel and very strange that the destroyer never appeared to have seen it coming. 

If this was the start of a Tom Clancy novel, I would put my odds on a live test of some new cyber warfare equipment, which made the US destroyer go blind and altered the autopilot on the PH container ship. 

[impulse]

8 hours ago, tomwct said:

As an American Navy man, the Commanding Officer will be relieved of duty. Maybe court martialed, but he will definitely be given his walking papers. This was a stupid accident, which never should have occurred. The CO of the Navy men that allowed Iran to take them into custody,was also court martialled and given his walking papers home and a bus ticket. These Navy men do not meet the high standards of the US Navy! I'm sure more will get their walking papers when the full accident report is completed. 

 

Seems rather foolish to run off and perhaps prosecute a competent commander for a collision that happened when he was probably asleep at 01:30.  May as well run off the commander's boss on shore, because he's as responsible for the training and operation as the commander.  Then his boss.  Which would not only be unfair to the people, but a waste of everything the Navy has invested in them.

 

More appropriate would be action against whoever was on duty at the time.  If that was the Commander, so be it.

 

It would be interesting to see how these recent cases were resolved:

 

The collision was the second in the region for US Navy warship in just more than a month. On May 9, the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain was struck by a South Korean fishing boat off the Korean Peninsula.

No injuries were reported in that incident, which a Navy official said occurred when the fishing boat's crew did not have a radio to hear warnings from the US warship.

The guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam ran aground in late January while anchoring near Yokosuka, damaging its propellers and discharging 1,100 gallons of hydraulic oil into the bay.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/us-navy-destroyer-collides-with-merchant-ship-japan/index.html

 

 

[rosst]

10 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I wonder if it was iPhones/ipads on the bridge during the night shift? They were at a critical point of their route with well known well published shipping lines. Something made those on the bridge lose situational awareness and it could be so embarrassing we may never get the full story.

One has to wonder that the radar does not have a collision alert? 

There will be big trouble for someone. 

[Andaman Al]

37 minutes ago, rosst said:

One has to wonder that the radar does not have a collision alert? 

There will be big trouble for someone. 

This is a very modern battle ship and sure the radar systems on the bridge would have been fitted with every tech gadget available, definitely alarms and if engaged possibly some form of collision avoidance system - tomwct can you elaborate.

 

But if you are earphones in listening to Dire Straits while you are playing candy crush saga, you might miss it all. (a tongue in cheek comment before anyone jumps on a soapbox and falls off   ).

 

It does appear to be Human Error but what needs explaining is the Philippine vessels strange u-turn. I am with Gulf Sailor - Tom Clancy has the answers.

[IMA_FARANG]

12 hours ago, ToS2014 said:

I agree with most of your thoughts; however, the USS Cole was stationary in a port being resupplied.  Much more to come but I would be concerned about my future career if I were the CO. 

----------------------------------

I would say the U.S.ships  CO just ended his Navy career.

[manarak]

1 hour ago, Gulfsailor said:

I assume you meant to say that the Philippines vessel had right of way. 

But just 30 minutes prior to the collision the PH ship made a strange U turn and then nearly straight into the destroyer, with only a last minute adjustment in course, hence the damage on the PH vessel just on the port side of its bow. After the collision the PH vessel turned again back on its original course heading northnortheast. Very strange the erratic behavior of the container vessel and very strange that the destroyer never appeared to have seen it coming. 

If this was the start of a Tom Clancy novel, I would put my odds on a live test of some new cyber warfare equipment, which made the US destroyer go blind and altered the autopilot on the PH container ship. 

now that's the most interesting post of the whole thread!

[anon4546543]

I do hope that the reported seven men missing are fine.

Like many others, I cannot fathom (no pun intended) how such an incident occurred.

The fact that the radar appeared not to be working before the collision, and possibly not at all now due to collision

damage needs to be investigated. (not that we will hear of the true outcome)

No need to be scapegoating now, lets think about and hope for the safety of seven military persons, just doing their duty.

[Chou Anou]

Yet another thing for the US to be embarrassed about: the Clown in Chief has still not appointed an ambassador to Japan nor a Secretary of the Navy, which would make dealing with this situation a lot easier.  Neither has he issued any statement (concern for the missing seamen, etc.) about the incident yet.  No surprise there; the draft-dodging coward is repeatedly openly disdainful and disrespectful of our veterans and soldiers.  Plus he's too concerned right now with the investigations closing in on his crooked ass...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/17/uss-fitzgerald-collision-trump-criticised-for-leaving-key-posts-unfilled

[manarak]

2 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

I assume you meant to say that the Philippines vessel had right of way. 

But just 30 minutes prior to the collision the PH ship made a strange U turn and then nearly straight into the destroyer, with only a last minute adjustment in course, hence the damage on the PH vessel just on the port side of its bow. After the collision the PH vessel turned again back on its original course heading northnortheast. Very strange the erratic behavior of the container vessel and very strange that the destroyer never appeared to have seen it coming. 

If this was the start of a Tom Clancy novel, I would put my odds on a live test of some new cyber warfare equipment, which made the US destroyer go blind and altered the autopilot on the PH container ship. 

 

do you have the timeline for that course?

is it established that the collision occured after the U-turn?

a simple explanation could be that the collision occured first, and then the Fitzgerald appeared at first ok, but then not sure, the container ship made a u-turn to assist if needed, but then resumed course once the Fitzgerald confirmed it was Ok?

 

and then, what is that other strange manoeuver north of Oshima on your map?

Edited June 17, 2017 by manarak

[manarak]

assuming the container ship hit the destroyer after the U-turn, here is a theory:

 

there is a first sharp right turn - it could have done this to avoid the destroyer a first time.

this manoeuver could have led the container ship outside its channel, so it does a u-turn to find back into its navigational channel.

and then human error on both sides did the rest.

[tomacht8]

2 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

I assume you meant to say that the Philippines vessel had right of way. 

But just 30 minutes prior to the collision the PH ship made a strange U turn and then nearly straight into the destroyer, with only a last minute adjustment in course, hence the damage on the PH vessel just on the port side of its bow. After the collision the PH vessel turned again back on its original course heading northnortheast. Very strange the erratic behavior of the container vessel and very strange that the destroyer never appeared to have seen it coming. 

If this was the start of a Tom Clancy novel, I would put my odds on a live test of some new cyber warfare equipment, which made the US destroyer go blind and altered the autopilot on the PH container ship. 

It is not forbidden for a ship to make a turn.
The question of guilt will certainly be clear.
Hope they find all the shipwrecked.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, IMA_FARANG said:

----------------------------------

I would say the U.S.ships  CO just ended his Navy career.

 

remains to be seen

seems everybody assume the navy ship screwed up, maybe it did, but fine little is known re facts so far

 

re navy and career;

 

many will remember the Ex. Valdez oil tanker that grounded up north in the US and let out a few pints of oil as a result.

that incident was a major news event for a long long time

 

don't remember what happened to the skipper following the accident

but some 2-4 years ago I read a story about him, he was then an instructor at a US Navy training establishment for navy navigators.

 

 

 

 

 

[55Jay]

13 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

It is not forbidden for a ship to make a turn.
The question of guilt will certainly be clear.
Hope they find all the shipwrecked.

For no reason, it might as well be "forbidden" in the merchant fleet, where fuel and course goes to cost of operations and profit.

[manarak]

update about the erratic manoeuvers: they could have been the consequence of "restricted navigation" rules, such as if a ship loses its channel, it must make a U-turn and get back in line where it left the channel.

 

also, the collision appears to have been more or less a glancing blow, if the Fitzgerald had been T-bones, it would probably have sunk, the container ship being about 4 times heavier.

 

from the damages, it appears that the Fitzgerald was stopped or nearly stopped at time of the collision. or, if it was not stopped, it was going at a similar speed as the freighter.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by manarak

[anon4546543]

Message to Nth Korea. You can disable all US navy ships by collision. 

[pegman]

1 hour ago, manarak said:

 

do you have the timeline for that course?

is it established that the collision occured after the U-turn?

a simple explanation could be that the collision occured first, and then the Fitzgerald appeared at first ok, but then not sure, the container ship made a u-turn to assist if needed, but then resumed course once the Fitzgerald confirmed it was Ok?

 

and then, what is that other strange manoeuver north of Oshima on your map?

The account I read on the BBC stated the U-turn occurred 25 minutes prior to the collision.