Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

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.

sorry, is this a condolences thread where condolences must be repeated with every post? my mistake then.

 

of course I feel sorry for the lives that were lost - at the same time I don't think posting condolences should be required from every poster.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, manarak said:

sorry, is this a condolences thread where condolences must be repeated with every post? my mistake then.

 

of course I feel sorry for the lives that were lost - at the same time I don't think posting condolences should be required from every poster.

No, of course not. This is a thread in which you can make unsubstanciated claims in total ignorance of any fact.

Armchair detective. Meanwhile the friends, families and crew mates are trying to come to grips about this disaster.

But you continue to enter your blissful lack of fact. When you are called to give evidence, someone may quote you.

Until then you are a dreamer.

Posted

Inflammatory post removed.   Continue making personal remarks and suspensions will be given.  

Posted

Above I mistakenly referred to another accident (a weird one) with a US Navy vessel and a freighter.

It was actually a US Coast Guard cutter by the name Cuyahoga.

The CO misinterpreting spotted navigation lights of the other vessel.

The misinterpretation ending, on a clear evening with excellent visibility, with Cuyahoga being ploughed down by the freighter and sinking rapidly, 11 fatalities.

 

Some relevant links below if of interest.

 

I find this accident quite interesting in the sense that it demonstrates how terribly wrong things can go due to rather silly mistakes, combined with bad BRM (bridge resource management).

 

The book Normal Accidents discusses and analyses a host of serious accidents and points to why they had to happen.

(the space shuttle that exploded right after take off, Three Mile Island Meltdown, the Korean passenger airliner that was shot down over Russia etc etc and a host of marine accidents)

Links to some excerpts below.

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Cuyahoga_(WIX-157)

 

BOOKS RE ACCIDENTS:

 

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=g66J6Vzq6EYC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Cuyahoga+normal+accidents&source=bl&ots=Wq6HuoJjtx&sig=ER2KVElH1SAIvH7SimYndDst9lw&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjup4WbwtDUAhXML48KHUPRAkMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=Cuyahoga normal accidents&f=false

 

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=CGIaNc3F1MgC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=Cuyahoga+normal+accidents&source=bl&ots=9Eu-34po-T&sig=LRR_f_IXWGE7Q7qdradiqNscaUc&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjup4WbwtDUAhXML48KHUPRAkMQ6AEIWDAH#v=onepage&q=Cuyahoga%20normal%20accidents&f=false

 

http://bowles-langley.com/wp-content/files_mf/humanerrorandmarinesafety26.pdf

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/normal-accidents

 

NEWS:

 

http://www.gangplank.com/documents/GPMNewsletterOct2008.pdf

 

https://www.proptalk.com/the-sinking-of-the-uscgc-cuyahoga/

 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, jaggiss said:

After 43 years at sea , of which 35 years as Master and 3 years in South China Sea , I'm probably in a better position to make comments than most people.

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

OK then can you analyze the situation here comprehensively from start to the collision ?

Posted

On another forum I saw a statement along the lines of;

"Most experts now seems to agree that it was the freighter that was overtaking the destroyer".

www.navytimes.com was quoted as source.'

'

In various news casts I have seen some interviews with/statements by a chap referred to as USN Vice Adm Joseph Aucoin. Apparently some kind of boss related to the US Navy Pacific fleet.

He comes out very strongly stating that every single detail related to this mishap will be published. Nothing will be hidden or classified.

Interesting. Hope he is right.

 

 

 

 

Posted
6 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

On another forum I saw a statement along the lines of;

"Most experts now seems to agree that it was the freighter that was overtaking the destroyer".

www.navytimes.com was quoted as source.'

'

In various news casts I have seen some interviews with/statements by a chap referred to as USN Vice Adm Joseph Aucoin. Apparently some kind of boss related to the US Navy Pacific fleet.

He comes out very strongly stating that every single detail related to this mishap will be published. Nothing will be hidden or classified.

Interesting. Hope he is right.

 

 

 

 

The military always reveals the truth and they don't take kindly to argument.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

The following is a digest by a US Navy officer arguing that the destroyer is at fault;

 

http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/

 

a bit lengthy but an OK read, (even with a couple of formality mistakes)

 

 

 

Some conspiracy ideas;

 

http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2017/06/conspiracy-theories-spring-around-uss-fitzgerald-acx-crystal-collision/

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17705/fitzgerald-collision-investigation-brings-frank-camp

 

 

Edited by melvinmelvin
add
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

From ABC News:

 

The box master claims the destroyer stayed on collision course despite repeated warnings.

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/uss-fitzgerald-stayed-collision-course-despite-warnings-report/8653696

 

 

 

The following is a report from US Navy Times on what is linked to above.

 

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/cargo-ships-captain-flashed-warning-lights-at-destroyer-fitzgerald?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy DNR 06-26-17&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

This seems somewhat confusing to me.

 

My impression is that most investigators agree that the container ship was coming from "behind" the destroyer.

It also seems to me that several agree that the container ship was the right of way/stand on ship and the destroyer the give way ship.

 

As far as I understand the scenario this would mean that the container ship approached the destroyer in the rather narrow green sector aft of the destroyer's athwartships axis.

 

Then comes the box master's statement where he says that the destroyer didn't give way and that the box carrier was sailing with hard starboard rudder for 10 minutes but didn't manage to avoid the crash.

 

10 minutes is no short time. The container ship is a 40 000 tonner, not a huge ship. 10 minutes with rudder hard over would bring it far away.

 

Doesn't add up for me. But maybe I have gotten the scenario all wrong.

 

 

Edited by melvinmelvin
forgot link
Posted

Yes,

but you are not overtaking (by definition of overtaking in the rules) if you are in that rather narrow green sector,

even if you are coming from aft of beam.

Or; as long as you see green light you are not overtaking.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, jaggiss said:

No. Overtaking vessel will see stern light and than green light. Just because he sees green light he is still overtaking and he must assume he is the overtaking vessel and keep clear.

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

Well, yes, coming from behind, seeing stern light, you are overtaking and you are the give way vessel and no later changes of speed, course, position, angle of approach will free you from the give way obligation that is very well described in the rules

 

But I am pointing to a different scenario in which; the freighter never sees the stern light, it is still coming from aft of beam but not so far aft that it first sees stern light and later green light. It only sees the green light. Then it is, per defintion, not overtaking and it is the stand on vessel whilst the destroyer has the give way obligation.

 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Here is a piece from (US) Navy Times on repairing the destroyer;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/fitzgerald-heading-to-dry-dock?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy DNR 07-10-17&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

appears that the damage is quite substantial.

 

 

I was running 2 plausible scenarios myself on this a couple weeks ago but gave up, frustrated as position/course/speed of  Fitzgerald wasn't known - only that it was S/SW of Tokyo Wan having come out of Yoko.  The comment by Crystal's master about going hard over STBD, was confusing. 

 

Has there been any new info on Fitzgerald's course and speed?

Posted
9 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I was running 2 plausible scenarios myself on this a couple weeks ago but gave up, frustrated as position/course/speed of  Fitzgerald wasn't known - only that it was S/SW of Tokyo Wan having come out of Yoko.  The comment by Crystal's master about going hard over STBD, was confusing. 

 

Has there been any new info on Fitzgerald's course and speed?

 

Yes confusing indeed, particularly when the master said he was going hard stbd for 10 minutes.

The Crystal is not huge, 40 000 tons, not fully loaded, can make a hell of a turn during 10 minutes, assuming rudder/steering in shape.

 

Nope haven't seen anything regarding the destroyer. I see on google and the like that a couple of UK newspapers

have references/articles now and then, but these sites are blocked for me by the authorities here in Thailand.

 

One could always construct some scenarios that could result in damages (both ships) as seen on the photos,

but they look very strange indeed.

 

Guess the Navy is struggling to get to grips with this. It seems probable that crew on the destroyer never

knew what was happening and what would hit them.

I am not so sure that we ever will have an exact description of what happened, would not be surprised if it

boils down to descriptions of probable/likely scenarios.

 

Don't think the Navy vessel was aware of what was taking place and PI guys on the boxcar are likely to

portray and support scenarious that would put them in not too bad light.

 

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, 55Jay said:

I was running 2 plausible scenarios myself on this a couple weeks ago but gave up, frustrated as position/course/speed of  Fitzgerald wasn't known - only that it was S/SW of Tokyo Wan having come out of Yoko.  The comment by Crystal's master about going hard over STBD, was confusing. 

 

Has there been any new info on Fitzgerald's course and speed?

Where did you get the info that the Fitzgerald was going S/SW ?

I searched everywhere, but I couldn't find any information on the Fitzgerald's heading or where it came from or where it was going.

Posted
2 hours ago, manarak said:

Where did you get the info that the Fitzgerald was going S/SW ?

I searched everywhere, but I couldn't find any information on the Fitzgerald's heading or where it came from or where it was going.

 

he did not say that it was going s/sw,

 

he said it was s/sw of Tokyo Wan, thats a location - not a direction

 

Thats been in some of the News clips quoted in this thread and in the other Fitzgerald thread that

it was on its way back to base, (marked on some of the maps that have been circulating).

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

he did not say that it was going s/sw,

 

he said it was s/sw of Tokyo Wan, thats a location - not a direction

 

Thats been in some of the News clips quoted in this thread and in the other Fitzgerald thread that

it was on its way back to base, (marked on some of the maps that have been circulating).

 

 

sorry for the misunderstanding!

I too always supposed the Fitzgerald was returning to base at Yokosuka, but then he wrote :

Quote

only that it was S/SW of Tokyo Wan having come out of Yoko

so I supposed he meant the Fitzgerald was heading out...

Posted
2 hours ago, manarak said:

 

sorry for the misunderstanding!

I too always supposed the Fitzgerald was returning to base at Yokosuka, but then he wrote :

so I supposed he meant the Fitzgerald was heading out...

Been a couple weeks since I read anything, just thought I remembered some article somewhere saying they had recently departed Yokosuka.   Might just be my CRS syndrome kicking in again.  :sad:

J//

Posted
4 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Been a couple weeks since I read anything, just thought I remembered some article somewhere saying they had recently departed Yokosuka.   Might just be my CRS syndrome kicking in again.  :sad:

J//

Yeah you would think they would have sorted this out by now. I have a funny feeling the Captain of the US ship may just be related to someone very high up. Silence sometimes tells a story.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...