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

[manarak]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't speak too soon. Apparently the freighter did not maintain a constant course as it was required to do.

Whatever, all will be revealed at the inquiry.

in fact, no, all may not be revealed in the inquiry, especially not US Navy practices the USN doesn't want to become public.

[manarak]

apparently, the captain, Commander Bryce Benson, was sleeping at the moment of the collision and his cabin has been crushed and he was injured. He was described as "lucky to be alive", I wonder how severely he has been wounded, because when metal is crushed... hope everyone recovers.

 

Unless the captain made changes to Navy procedures or otherwise influenced negatively the safety of the ship, he seems clear of any responsibility for the collision as he was sleeping at the time.

 

It's a bit disappointing that we don't have an explanation of what could realistically have caused the erratic navigation of the ACX CRystal prior to the collision.

[Artisi]

Something very amiss with the whole situation, being a reasonable hi-tec naval vessel there should have been alarm bells ringing their arse off that another vessel was close,  with the US destroyer being more manoverable than a lumbering freighter it should have responded by steering off.

[PJPom]

This is an accident that seems impossible, a full bridge crew, possibly a junior officer of the watch but backed up by competent professionals.

It is obvious no alarm was raised otherwise skipper would have been on the bridge,  so what went wrong? Collective panic or sheer incompetence, drug tests will be flying around also.

Condolences to the families of the deceased 

[hawker9000]

On 6/17/2017 at 9:33 PM, impulse said:

 

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

 

 

Finally.  An intelligent comment.  There'll be an inquiry, and the CO could quite possibly be held accountable if bridge or lookout manning or standing policies/orders concerning  watchstanding, qualifications & training, night orders,  maneuvering in shipping lanes, collision avoidance, etc., are found to have in any way contributed to the accident or been deficient.  That's a huge area of responsibility (as it should be), and if the CO survives the scrutiny intact I'll be surprised, but it's not exactly a given. 

 

All the hoo-hah here about the cause(s) of the accident itself is just cheap armchair speculation by the uninformed.  Condition normal.

[anon4546543]

Rather than the blame game just yet, RIP  to the seven sailors. Condolences to family, friends and crewmates.

[jaggiss]

To much Reliance on electronics and not enough looking out the windows, by both ships.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[hawker9000]

To much Reliance on electronics and not enough looking out the windows, by both ships.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

And you know this about this incident how?

[jaggiss]

Experience

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, jaggiss said:

To much Reliance on electronics and not enough looking out the windows, by both ships.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Unfortunately what you say is not uncommon,

 

and frequently combined with navigator's weak understanding of the inherent limitations of the electronic gear they rely on

[jaggiss]

Looking at the damage I'd guess the navy, but usually 75% and 25% at fault each unless restricted by draught etc but probably not at 56 miles at sea

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[Searat7]

On 6/17/2017 at 10:12 AM, 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. 

No...I feel the US ship had the right of way based on the point of impact. The erratic travel path of the PH vessel was published after I wrote my posting...the container vessel is definitely responsible but the USA ship should have seen the problem on their navigation system/radar and gone to to flank speed to avoid collision.

[ddavidovsky]

From the utterly bizarre path of the PH freighter it's tempting to suggest that, having detected the destroyer, it doubled back deliberately to ram it, then it continued on its original path. There is some odd manoeuvring going on at the extremity of its U-turn which presumably flummoxed whoever was steering the destroyer. Filipino with a grudge against the Americans? Terrorist attack?

Not to say I believe this, but information is being withheld as usual (no word form the PH crew even?) therefore they are inviting speculation.

 

Just to go OTT on this: how if the Filipino officer was a trained terrorist operative (like the 9/11 pilots) and the whole thing had been elaborately planned? If they'd managed to sink the destroyer, that would be a terrorist coup almost on a par with 9/11...

Edited June 20, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[pegman]

59 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

From the utterly bizarre path of the PH freighter it's tempting to suggest that, having detected the destroyer, it doubled back deliberately to ram it, then it continued on its original path. There is some odd manoeuvring going on at the extremity of its U-turn which presumably flummoxed whoever was steering the destroyer. Filipino with a grudge against the Americans? Terrorist attack?

Not to say I believe this, but information is being withheld as usual (no word form the PH crew even?) therefore they are inviting speculation.

 

Just to go OTT on this: how if the Filipino officer was a trained terrorist operative (like the 9/11 pilots) and the whole thing had been elaborately planned? If they'd managed to sink the destroyer, that would be a terrorist coup almost on a par with 9/11...

The Japanese operator of the big ship, P.I. flagged, is saying the collision happened 25 minutes before the first  u-turn. Likely where it made the sharp right. It had been starting to go left shortly before that. I read speculation on Japan News that the navy ship may have been overtaking the big ship when this happened. Something like you see on Thai motorways  where no one checks their mirrors before changing lanes. Navy guys need to honk in future. RIP to the seamen.

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, pegman said:

The Japanese operator of the big ship, P.I. flagged, is saying the collision happened 25 minutes before the first  u-turn. Likely where it made the sharp right. It had been starting to go left shortly before that. I read speculation on Japan News that the navy ship may have been overtaking the big ship when this happened. Something like you see on Thai motorways  where no one checks their mirrors before changing lanes. Navy guys need to honk in future. RIP to the seamen.

The freighter veering left while being overtaken by the destroyer sort of matches the collision marks on both ships.

(maybe the marks on the destroyer should have been over a longer stretch of the hull if the above was the case)

 

If such veering left took the destroyer by surprise the ships must have been pretty close during the overtaking,

much too close for comfort to put it that way.

 

Some years back there was another accident US Navy ship / freighter - overtaking, it happened in the waterways

upstream of Chessapeeke(?) Bay. This accident is described and discussed in a book called "Normal Accidents".

Worth looking at, it describes how incredibly wrong things can go on board a navy vessel. This accident was just weird weird.

 

[pegman]

48 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

The freighter veering left while being overtaken by the destroyer sort of matches the collision marks on both ships.

(maybe the marks on the destroyer should have been over a longer stretch of the hull if the above was the case)

 

If such veering left took the destroyer by surprise the ships must have been pretty close during the overtaking,

much too close for comfort to put it that way.

 

Some years back there was another accident US Navy ship / freighter - overtaking, it happened in the waterways

upstream of Chessapeeke(?) Bay. This accident is described and discussed in a book called "Normal Accidents".

Worth looking at, it describes how incredibly wrong things can go on board a navy vessel. This accident was just weird weird.

 

Maybe just a glancing blow. It wouldn't take much of an impact for objects that size to cause significant damage. Had it been a t-bone at the speed the container ship was traveling at that navy ship would have been toast.

[JAG]

As many have said, the Naval vessel would be stuffed full of radars and similar gadgets. However, these are "active", and when switched on emit radiation which is easily detected. Navies often prefer to remain "passive", not emitting and therefore not detectable. This may be the root of the matter here.

Of course the wisdom of remaining "passive" in a busy sea lane is debatable...

[geriatrickid]

One factor not mentioned is that the shipping lane may not have been as "wide" as we think. There are issues such as depth and topography not shown on the maps.

I believe the "overtaking"  suggestion. Inexperienced junior USN officer on the bridge at that hour, with a  cargo ship with minimal  personnel on deck, perhaps  on auto pilot.

 

I was recently on board one of these  big ships and was surprised that everything on the bridge is automated. They don't even have navigation stations with maps and someone who plots a course. It's all done by computer. It saves the cargo carriers alot of money as the position is eliminated. The  ship bridge can operate with 1 to 3  people now, even the big ones.

[ddavidovsky]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

The Japanese operator of the big ship, P.I. flagged, is saying the collision happened 25 minutes before the first  u-turn. Likely where it made the sharp right. It had been starting to go left shortly before that. I read speculation on Japan News that the navy ship may have been overtaking the big ship when this happened. Something like you see on Thai motorways  where no one checks their mirrors before changing lanes. Navy guys need to honk in future. RIP to the seamen.

First graphic I saw flagged the collision to be after the first U-turn at the point where it turned back north again. Hence my outlandish theory.  I've just seen a report saying that the collision actually took place at 1.30 a.m. - the point of the first U-turn - but the freighter didn't report it until an hour later. Question is still how and why. The freighter's behaviour is suspiciously irregular.

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

One factor not mentioned is that the shipping lane may not have been as "wide" as we think. There are issues such as depth and topography not shown on the maps.

I believe the "overtaking"  suggestion. Inexperienced junior USN officer on the bridge at that hour, with a  cargo ship with minimal  personnel on deck, perhaps  on auto pilot.

 

I was recently on board one of these  big ships and was surprised that everything on the bridge is automated. They don't even have navigation stations with maps and someone who plots a course. It's all done by computer. It saves the cargo carriers alot of money as the position is eliminated. The  ship bridge can operate with 1 to 3  people now, even the big ones.

'Maps they have, but maybe not paper maps, many use electronic maps in place of paper maps.

A so called ECDIS system. ECDIS don't come cheap but a lot of manpower is saved in that you don't need to keep a large number of paper maps up to date anymore.

In stead of correcting navigational maps the relevant navigator can be bogged down with other tasks that distracts him from navigating safely.

 

The Crystal is not really a very big ship, its a 40 000 tonner. 30 meters and a bit wide 220 meters and a bit long. (Probably tailored for nipping through the old Panama Canal.)

Add another 100 meters to the length and another 20 odd meters to the width then you are up there with the really big ships today bulk (dry and wet) carriers and the big Chinese and Danish container ships.

 

I think you will find today that most commercial ships Crystal-size and much smaller ones and the real big one are operated by 1 man daytime (the navigator) and (hopefully) 2 men night time (navigato

[ballpoint]

More info on the container ship's course, and collision position here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/18/world/asia/path-ship-hit-uss-fitzgerald.html

 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

36 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

'Maps they have, but maybe not paper maps, many use electronic maps in place of paper maps.

A so called ECDIS system. ECDIS don't come cheap but a lot of manpower is saved in that you don't need to keep a large number of paper maps up to date anymore.

In stead of correcting navigational maps the relevant navigator can be bogged down with other tasks that distracts him from navigating safely.

 

The Crystal is not really a very big ship, its a 40 000 tonner. 30 meters and a bit wide 220 meters and a bit long. (Probably tailored for nipping through the old Panama Canal.)

Add another 100 meters to the length and another 20 odd meters to the width then you are up there with the really big ships today bulk (dry and wet) carriers and the big Chinese and Danish container ships.

 

I think you will find today that most commercial ships Crystal-size and much smaller ones and the real big one are operated by 1 man daytime (the navigator) and (hopefully) 2 men night time (navigato

(too late to edit so I add a comment in stead)

 

I think you will find that today most commercial ships Crystal-size and much smaller ones and the real big ones are operated by 1 man daytime (the navigator) and (hopefully) 2 men night time (navigator and lookout).

Many are sloppy with the lookout. Many bog down the lookout with some other tasks to do each watch so that he

has to leave the bridge now and then.

Some ships, some, will have a lookout daytime in very busy waters.

You can safely assume that people at the helm is not common. Steering is done by autopilot.

(many navigators will argue that they prefer autopilots to people at the helm, autopilots are pretty good)

 

 

[dabhand]

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

First graphic I saw flagged the collision to be after the first U-turn at the point where it turned back north again. Hence my outlandish theory.  I've just seen a report saying that the collision actually took place at 1.30 a.m. - the point of the first U-turn - but the freighter didn't report it until an hour later. Question is still how and why. The freighter's behaviour is suspiciously irregular.

Seems to be some confusion as to actual time of the collision. The earlier time of 1.30am would tend to make some sense of the back tracking of the container ship (rather than as a deliberate ramming). But still leaves the issue of late reporting.

 

However, the US Navy continues to go with the later timing. Have not seen any press reports of comments from the container ship crew, no doubt owners / insurers have told them to keep quiet.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/japan-investigates-delay-reporting-us-navy-ship-collision-48127236

A track of the much-larger container ship's route by MarineTraffic, a vessel-tracking service, shows it made a sudden turn as if trying to avoid something at about 1:30 a.m., before continuing eastward. It then made a U-turn and returned around 2:30 a.m. to the area near the collision

 

Adding to the confusion, a U.S. Navy official said it is sticking with the 2:20 a.m. timing for the crash that he said had been reported by the Fitzgerald.

Asked about the earlier time cited by the coast guard, Navy spokesman Cmdr. Ron Flanders said, "That is not our understanding." He said any differences would have to be clarified in the investigation.

[ddavidovsky]

45 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

More info on the container ship's course, and collision position here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/18/world/asia/path-ship-hit-uss-fitzgerald.html

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, now it makes sense. The freighter obviously turned back to see what damage it had caused, saw the Fitzgerald was still afloat, then carried on its original route. As to the cause of the collision: my money is on human error arising from a freak combination of circumstances.

[jaggiss]

Poor navigation and piss poor bridge management pn both vessels. No comms between vessels sounds likely

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Okay, now it makes sense. The freighter obviously turned back to see what damage it had caused, saw the Fitzgerald was still afloat, then carried on its original route. As to the cause of the collision: my money is on human error arising from a freak combination of circumstances.

Dont think you will make a decent profit on putting your satang on human error

 

Your outlandish theory will get  better odds

[puck2]

I understand now why Trump needs such a high military budget for the USA – x-times higher than the other NATO countries have.

 

Merkel's answer:  Germany will invest in merchant vessels.

[manarak]

10 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Okay, now it makes sense. The freighter obviously turned back to see what damage it had caused, saw the Fitzgerald was still afloat, then carried on its original route. As to the cause of the collision: my money is on human error arising from a freak combination of circumstances.

 

which apparently puts 100% of responsibility on the Fitzgerald - not able to avoid a freighter on autopilot broadcasting its position on AIS.

 

Rather than the "freak combination of circumstances", I rather think a reckless manoeuver by the Fitzgerald caused the collision.

 

Again from the damage pics, the metal seems to have been bent towards the Fitzgerald's aft and if true, this would mean the Fitzgerald was going faster than the Crystal, trying to cut in front.

[anon4546543]

9 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

which apparently puts 100% of responsibility on the Fitzgerald - not able to avoid a freighter on autopilot broadcasting its position on AIS.

 

Rather than the "freak combination of circumstances", I rather think a reckless manoeuver by the Fitzgerald caused the collision.

 

Again from the damage pics, the metal seems to have been bent towards the Fitzgerald's aft and if true, this would mean the Fitzgerald was going faster than the Crystal, trying to cut in front.

I do not doubt for an instance your forensic capacity, your knowledge of events and that you will be called as an expert witness in the yet to come inquiry.

But how about the tiniest bit of compassion for the 7 dead service persons, their family and shipmates. Surely they do not need your intellect just yet.