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

[55Jay]

10 minutes ago, Grubster said:

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.

Thought so too given more than 1 investigating body is involved and key officers would be on admin status/available for inquiry.  

 

But.... wouldn't start speculating on cover ups just yet, and resist rush to judgement while they bury their dead.   Navy investigations tend to take a while, and intentionally avoid trial by media.  Recall it was a rather long time before the final investigation and disposition was out on the USN patrol craft(s) that wound up in Iranian waters. 

[melvinmelvin]

 

A smallish piece of further "news" from NavyTimes,

seems the destroyer's CO is now on sick leave.

 

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/fitzgerald-co-temporarily-relieved?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy DNR 07-11-17&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

The text which is linked to above also contains  couple of further links to news snippeys.

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

Anybody familiar with US Navy ships (like the destroyer) here?

 

Would such a ship normally have a quality VDR (voyage data redcorder) running?  Or would the navy consider a VDR as a potential security threat and opt to do without?

 

Without detailed knowledge of the destroyer's course, speed, rudder angles, position, track etc it might be close to impossible to describe in detail what happened and what led to the crash.

 

Dunno, but looks to me as if the crash came as a total surprise to the destroyer, they probably didn't have a clue as to what was about to happen.

 

This combined with the PI master's/crew's wish to portray a scenario that does not put them in  too bad light (the are Asian and face concerned) makes this quite difficult me thinks.

 

[55Jay]

@melvinmelvin

Article is from last month, no new info, but the lack of nav data on Fitzgerald would bear out the suggestion that Fitzgerald's AIS was switched off, or possibly in passive/receive mode, thus not transmitting own ship data on the network.   It mentions VDRs being UN mandated equipment, but doesn't circle back around to confirm if that includes military war ships. 

Quote

Navy ships are equipped with AIS systems, as any vessel-tracking site will show. However, commanders of ships in the US Navy (and other navies) frequently turn off AIS to preserve mission security, as the Navy pointed out when Google warned the Navy of the security risks of AIS in 2012. And in many cases, that means that AIS is turned off whenever Navy ships are outside of the control area of local vessel traffic systems—whenever they're in open ocean. And merchant ships have been recorded turning off AIS before entering sensitive areas to avoid giving off location data, either for safety or for nefarious purposes.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/internet-of-ships-tells-tale-of-uss-fitzgerald-tragedy-or-half-of-it/

 

[melvinmelvin]

5 hours ago, 55Jay said:

@melvinmelvin

Article is from last month, no new info, but the lack of nav data on Fitzgerald would bear out the suggestion that Fitzgerald's AIS was switched off, or possibly in passive/receive mode, thus not transmitting own ship data on the network.   It mentions VDRs being UN mandated equipment, but doesn't circle back around to confirm if that includes military war ships. 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/internet-of-ships-tells-tale-of-uss-fitzgerald-tragedy-or-half-of-it/

 

 

I asked about Fitzgerald and VDR (or similar) on another forum.

It was said that US Navy ships don't normally have ordinary VDRs but voyage data is stored in the ship's Command and Control system and can later be retrieved,

 

Supposedly the US Navy has retrieved the relevant data from Fitzgerald's Command and Control system. However, the US Navy does not normally share this data with others, it is kept for the Navy's own investigation of the mishap.

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by melvinmelvin
typo

[melvinmelvin]

 

This youtube video is kind of conspiracy theory,

but still quite informative.

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

Another video that touches on some interesting information,

alas, the video is pretty badly made and the presentation is quite lousy.

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

No breaking news, but a bit interesting;

 

https://sputniknews.com/military/201706191054778289-uss-fitzgerald-raises-doubts-for-real-combat-capability/

 

In the link above some so called experts are putting the blame, the whole blame, for the crash on the destroyer.

 

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707141055527183-fitzgerald-crash-billions-liability-lawsuit/

 

In the link above it is stated that the owners of the container ship may be liable for up to 2 billion US.

 

 

The interesting bit being that, as per normal, lack of solid knowledge does not result in lack of strong opinions.

 

[thaihome]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

No breaking news, but a bit interesting;

 

https://sputniknews.com/military/201706191054778289-uss-fitzgerald-raises-doubts-for-real-combat-capability/

 

In the link above some so called experts are putting the blame, the whole blame, for the crash on the destroyer.

 

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707141055527183-fitzgerald-crash-billions-liability-lawsuit/

 

In the link above it is stated that the owners of the container ship may be liable for up to 2 billion US.

 

 

The interesting bit being that, as per normal, lack of solid knowledge does not result in lack of strong opinions.

 

Not surprising conclusions coming from Sputnik News.

 

Foreign Policy magazine has described Sputnik as a slick and internet-savvy outlet of Kremlin propaganda, which "remixes President Vladimir Putin's brand of revanchist nationalism for an international audience... beating a predictable drum of anti-Western rhetoric."[5] Such views were also voiced by the Washington DC-based think tank[27] Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), which argues that Sputnik spreads biased information. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)

 

The US Navy and the other two or three investigations will likely take a year or so before their reports are released just lIke other similar investigations in the past. Nothing other then idle speculation until then. 

TH 

 

[chrisinth]

On 6/17/2017 at 1:10 PM, melvinmelvin said:

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

 

Speaking only about the Royal Navy in which I spent 23 years, specializing in navigation and small boat operations, I find that comment to have no merit. An Officer of the Watch (OOW) has to prove himself/herself before being trusted with the responsibility of both the vessel and all her crew. To this end he/she will undergo intense training in both navigation and ship handling.

 

The bridge crew during normal cruising (for a similar sized warship) would be made up of the Officer of the Watch, Quartermaster, (helmsman) Boatswain's Mate and a Radio Operator. 

 

On entering busy or restricted waterways, Special Sea Dutymen would be called for which, in addition to normal cruising would include the Captain or First Lieutenant being on the bridge and wheel and engine order logging commenced with the Navigating Officer taking over on the con and the OOW dedicated to the chart table. The engine room would also be manned with extra personnel, the ship's watertight integrity would be increased with fire & emergency parties mustered . 

 

A warship only has one dedicated Navigating Officer. I am certain that the same applies to the US Navy as well.

 

And just for interest, in the RN, form S.232 is the Report of Collision or Grounding form. This is why you will never (well, on very, very rare occasions) have the helmsman steering 232 degrees......................

[melvinmelvin]

 

In today's Bangkok Post there was a small notice on this accident.

 

An unnamed US Navy officer had expressed that it looks like it was all Fitzgerald's fault.

Crew not paying attention to the ship's surroundings and delaying taking evasive action until it was too late.

 

 

[Bung]

It's quite simple and there are clear rules even the most basic seaman should know.  Just like on the road, you give way to the right. The Fitzgerald approached that container ship from the left,  the container ship had right of way. Look up "colregs" They are keeping it quiet because it was the US navy's fault. Doesn't take a year to figure it out. 

[thehelmsman]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:18 PM, melvinmelvin said:

Anybody familiar with US Navy ships (like the destroyer) here?

 

Would such a ship normally have a quality VDR (voyage data redcorder) running?  Or would the navy consider a VDR as a potential security threat and opt to do without?

 

Without detailed knowledge of the destroyer's course, speed, rudder angles, position, track etc it might be close to impossible to describe in detail what happened and what led to the crash.

 

Dunno, but looks to me as if the crash came as a total surprise to the destroyer, they probably didn't have a clue as to what was about to happen.

 

This combined with the PI master's/crew's wish to portray a scenario that does not put them in  too bad light (the are Asian and face concerned) makes this quite difficult me thinks.

 

Merchant ships are required to have a VDR, I would assume the Navy would have them as well.

 

 

[thehelmsman]

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:22 AM, 55Jay said:

@melvinmelvin

Article is from last month, no new info, but the lack of nav data on Fitzgerald would bear out the suggestion that Fitzgerald's AIS was switched off, or possibly in passive/receive mode, thus not transmitting own ship data on the network.   It mentions VDRs being UN mandated equipment, but doesn't circle back around to confirm if that includes military war ships. 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/internet-of-ships-tells-tale-of-uss-fitzgerald-tragedy-or-half-of-it/

 

USN ships don't transmit on AIS. I know from experience sailing on US naval units.

[thehelmsman]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 6:48 PM, melvinmelvin said:

 

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.

 

 

If the Fitzgerald was being overtaken, its the other ships responsibility to stay clear. The ship being overtaken (Fitzgerald) is the stand on vessel and is to maintain course and speed.

[jaggiss]

Until??

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

[thehelmsman]

1 minute ago, jaggiss said:

Until??

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

Yes, nothing is black and white.

[anon4546543]

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

In today's Bangkok Post there was a small notice on this accident.

 

An unnamed US Navy officer had expressed that it looks like it was all Fitzgerald's fault.

Crew not paying attention to the ship's surroundings and delaying taking evasive action until it was too late.

 

 

I know nothing about the modern navy or shipping. But I do suspect that in collisions by

two ships in the open sea, both ships to a greater or lesser extent were at fault.

For a modern warship to collide at sea does seem almost improbable to me except

it did happen. Regardless of who is finally found to be more at fault (5 years time lol)

I imagine that the US navy is highly embarrassed and in defensive mode. It will either

fess up and hope it goes away soon and be consigned to history. But I suspect it will

fight it all the way. I do hope some form of truth prevails at the very end 

[melvinmelvin]

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

In today's Bangkok Post there was a small notice on this accident.

 

An unnamed US Navy officer had expressed that it looks like it was all Fitzgerald's fault.

Crew not paying attention to the ship's surroundings and delaying taking evasive action until it was too late.

 

 

 

Googling a bit I came across the following;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/uss-fitzgerald-collision-american-sailors-probably-to-blame-for-fatal-cargo-ship-crash

 

seems Bangkok Post came across the same . . .

[melvinmelvin]

19 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Googling a bit I came across the following;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/uss-fitzgerald-collision-american-sailors-probably-to-blame-for-fatal-cargo-ship-crash

 

seems Bangkok Post came across the same . . .

 

even another one based on the same source it seems;

 

http://taskandpurpose.com/uss-fitzgerald-collision-navy-fault/

 

 

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed as well as the replies. 

[melvinmelvin]

 

It appears that the US Navy is done with the investigation;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/08/17/water-on-deck-get-out-the-navys-official-report-of-the-fitzgeralds-catastrophe-at-sea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy DNR 08-17-17&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

[melvinmelvin]

8 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

It appears that the US Navy is done with the investigation;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/08/17/water-on-deck-get-out-the-navys-official-report-of-the-fitzgeralds-catastrophe-at-sea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy DNR 08-17-17&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

 

Having read some of it I need to correct what I said above.

This is a preliminary report mostly covering the damage to the destroyer and the crew's handling of the crash.

 

It does not cover the navigational aspects leading up to the crash.

 

[webfact]

UPDATE:

 

Dozen U.S. sailors to be punished for June collision - U.S. Navy

By Idrees Ali

 

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) sits in Dry Dock 4 for continued repairs and assessment of damage it sustained during its June 17, 2017 collision with a merchant vessel at Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka in Yokosuka, Japan in this photo taken July 11, 2017. Courtesy of U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Leonard Adams/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About a dozen U.S. sailors are expected to face punishment for a collision in June between the USS Fitzgerald and a Philippines cargo ship, including the warship's commanding officer and other senior leaders of the ship, the Navy said on Thursday.

 

Full story: https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/997739-dozen-us-sailors-to-be-punished-for-june-collision-us-navy/

[melvinmelvin]

The preliminary report mentions one thing that puzzles me a bit.  It says that after the whole front part of the destroyer lost power one of the crew had to use his mobile phone to contact home-base and inform them about the crash.

 

On ordinary commercial ships you normally have a dedicated battery backup close to the bridge for emergency radio communication should normal power vanish.  At least more than enough power in the batteries to run VHF and short wave for a good while.

 

Don't navy vessels have such arrangements?

 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

A follow up article in today's US Navy Times;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/08/17/water-on-deck-get-out-the-navys-official-report-of-the-fitzgeralds-catastrophe-at-sea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NT DNR 8/18/17&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

Some views from BBC on this issue;

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40970860

 

 

[Grouse]

Following another fatal accident at sea with an American warship, China says all American warships must display "L" plates. Learner drivers are not permitted in the Mallaca Straits. ?

 

A spoksperson for the Royal Navy, Capt Pugwash RN, suggests that they introduce rum rations for all able bodied seamen.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Grouse

[melvinmelvin]

5 years ago there was another USN destroyer bumping (hard) into a tanker in the Hormuz Strait, no fatalities but lots of damage as far as I remember

the term destroyer takes on new semantical meanings, one thinks

 

I think maybe I mentioned it higher up in this thread. There is a US book titled Normal Accidents.  The book addresses a series of well known accidents (and many not well known) and points to why this accident more or less had to happen, when things first started to go in the wrong direction.

 

Among well known accidents discussed, the 747 shot down over Sakhalin, the space shuttle that blew into fragments shortly after take off, some Three Mile Island accident if I remember correctly

 

and an accident leading to 11 fatalities and a US Coast Guard training vessel sinking in the DC/Baltimore area the training vessel sunk in a couple of minutes after having been almost cut in two by an oncoming freighter

coming down the river the skipper sees the freighter, he sees her steaming lights but he has one of those short circuits in his brain making him think that he is in the process of overtaking the freighter, he is going to port to pass the freighter and is ploughed down

 

lots of people on the bridge seeing what is taking place but nobody intervenes with the skipper

 

I would not be surprised if the answers to these 3 destroyer happenings are linked to BRM or lack thereof

 

 

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

5 years ago there was another USN destroyer bumping (hard) into a tanker in the Hormuz Strait, no fatalities but lots of damage as far as I remember

the term destroyer takes on new semantical meanings, one thinks

 

I think maybe I mentioned it higher up in this thread. There is a US book titled Normal Accidents. The book addresses a series of well known accidents (and many not well known) and points to why this accident more or less had to happen, when things first started to go in the wrong direction.

 

Among well known accidents discussed, the 747 shot down over Sakhalin, the space shuttle that blew into fragments shortly after take off, some Three Mile Island accident if I remember correctly

 

and an accident leading to 11 fatalities and a US Coast Guard training vessel sinking in the DC/Baltimore area the training vessel sunk in a couple of minutes after having been almost cut in two by an oncoming freighter

coming down the river the skipper sees the freighter, he sees her steaming lights but he has one of those short circuits in his brain making him think that he is in the process of overtaking the freighter, he is going to port to pass the freighter and is ploughed down

 

lots of people on the bridge seeing what is taking place but nobody intervenes with the skipper

 

I would not be surprised if the answers to these 3 destroyer happenings are linked to BRM or lack thereof

 

 

 

MCC multi crew cooperation is a  big problem in Asian aviation. Captain Krap!