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

[melvinmelvin]

5 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Pretty damning evidence that the CNO and VCNO are hell-bent of fire-walling their sloping-shoulders. An ex- USN friend says that the overall situation of how the Navy delivers Commander's Intent in the Pacific fleet is dire, especially how "Force Generation – the process of maintaining, training and certifying naval forces" is being implemented. Sailors go through a pressured regimen of training that is little more than a 'box checking' exercise. These do little to encourage the mastery of any particular skill and understanding of basic principles and thus imperils crew discipline and basic on-deck command and control. If there's a lack of focus and in-depth understanding by the Captain due to some incoherent, incremental certification process that's mismanaged by a fundamentally disengaged shore command, then in my opinion, there's little hope for basic seamanship at sea and accidents will happen.

In some of the many reports from the navy re these accidents

you may see that they have kinda come to the same conclusion as you re training

 

some measures suggested include longer periods of internship before being given the "wheel"

more training both on shore and on board focused on ship handling/seamanship

both the practical side and the more theoretical side

 

 

[manarak]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

A CO might get away, flak free, with that today - after the accidents,

but it would have been quite problematic 2 years ago - me thinks

I think you are right... looks like a lose-lose situation ?

[melvinmelvin]

7 hours ago, manarak said:

I think you are right... looks like a lose-lose situation ?

 

lose lose? maybe

 

but for sure the US navy has some severe challenges

(education, training, certification, workload, rest periods, attitude/responsibility .........)

 

very interestingly there seem to be some significant similarities between these 2 destroyer crashes and the Norwegian frigate

that crashed last week

 

 

[Foxerjon]

Captain.  "Oh Shit!"

Navigating Officer. "What are your intentions now, sir?"

Captain.  "Buy a farm"

[manarak]

On 11/17/2018 at 12:22 PM, melvinmelvin said:

lose lose? maybe

 

but for sure the US navy has some severe challenges

(education, training, certification, workload, rest periods, attitude/responsibility .........)

 

very interestingly there seem to be some significant similarities between these 2 destroyer crashes and the Norwegian frigate

that crashed last week

 

looks like they all need anti-collision systems.

[melvinmelvin]

 

McCain, the destroyer that crashed off Singapore is in the water (and floating) again.

 

see story;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/11/28/warship-john-s-mccain-returns-to-the-water-for-the-first-time-since-last-summers-fatal-collision/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 11-28-18&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

here is a link to an interesting piece of news in the US Navy Times

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/11/ship-owners-to-pay-us-government-for-fitzgerald-collision/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 1-11-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

seem to be costly affairs these destroyer crashes

 

A QUESTION,

the accident investigation board, has it concluded or is it still at work?

I mean the civil Japanese board, not the USN board

 

cannot recall hearing anything re final report/findings

 

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed. 

[Tug]

Fitzgerald is at fault the damage is on her starboard side if someone approaches your starboard side you are the (give way vessel) also the merchantmen is a much larger vessel and falls under the restriction ability to maneuver class plus her damage is on her port bow 

[melvinmelvin]

18 minutes ago, Tug said:

Fitzgerald is at fault the damage is on her starboard side if someone approaches your starboard side you are the (give way vessel) also the merchantmen is a much larger vessel and falls under the restriction ability to maneuver class plus her damage is on her port bow 

yes,

that is common thinking, but read the link that I posted above,

 

some further perspectives are penned there

 

shows why such cases often end with fault/blame-sharing - black/white - clean/cut is rare re marine accidents

 

 

[Patriot1066]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

Fitzgerald is at fault the damage is on her starboard side if someone approaches your starboard side you are the (give way vessel) also the merchantmen is a much larger vessel and falls under the restriction ability to maneuver class plus her damage is on her port bow 

Yes in normal circumstance that is correct but they have identified several issues with the civilian vessel including it on autopilot and lack of supervision.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-destroyer-crash-that-killed-seven-u-s-sailors-1796462864

 

This is an older post which sort of makes some sense.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Patriot1066 said:

Yes in normal circumstance that is correct but they have identified several issues with the civilian vessel including it on autopilot and lack of supervision.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-destroyer-crash-that-killed-seven-u-s-sailors-1796462864

 

This is an older post which sort of makes some sense.

 

good link, thanks

 

must say though, not much impressed with what is uttered

 

[Patriot1066]

19 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

good link, thanks

 

must say though, not much impressed with what is uttered

 

Yes I agree with you, interesting. I wonder if there is something going on, they are not actually releasing?

 

I would respectfully defer to your better knowledge of the rules and protocols though, rather me reading internet articles!

[melvinmelvin]

Guys,

I do recommend reading this;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/worse-than-you-thought-inside-the-secret-fitzgerald-probe-the-navy-doesnt-want-you-to-read/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 1-14-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

what is revealed here is way more than average interesting,

here many of the deficiencies and shortcomings re destroyer Fitzgerald are highlighted

 

Quite frightening really

 

There is no easy and no speedy way for the US Navy to sort this one.

[melvinmelvin]

Here is some more concrete information

re circumstances the day before crash and the day of the crash

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/a-warship-doomed-by-confusion-indecision-and-ultimately-panic-on-the-bridge/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 1-14-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

[melvinmelvin]

This is from probably one of the very first inspections/investigations

after the crash

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/the-ghost-in-the-fitzs-machine-why-a-doomed-warships-crew-never-saw-the-vessel-that-hit-it/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 1-14-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

Here the massive lack of competence is highlighted, frightening stuff this.

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

This is some pre-crash history re the Fitz

but also some highlights of conditions on board the Fitz right after the crash

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/15/a-watery-hell-how-a-green-crew-fought-the-fitz-to-save-her/

 

[melvinmelvin]

After reading the above report snippets

one (at least I) has to ask;

 

To what extent is the complete mess described re the Fitz specific to that ship?

Or would all USN destroyers be similarly messy, in one way or the other.

What about other USN ships? Messy or streamlined?

 

From what the navy as published, report wise, earlier (last year),

it looks as if shortcomings in marine competence, seamanship and ability to drive a warship safely

is a general problem in the USN (they said so themselves).

(and USN is not alone here)

 

But apart from that, what about the rest that is reported and highlighted in the prev. few posts,

specific to the Fitz or a general problem?

 

Would have been interesting to have a McCain (the off SIngapore crash) report and compared the two.

 

 

[Patriot1066]

3 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

Guys,

I do recommend reading this;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/worse-than-you-thought-inside-the-secret-fitzgerald-probe-the-navy-doesnt-want-you-to-read/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 1-14-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

what is revealed here is way more than average interesting,

here many of the deficiencies and shortcomings re destroyer Fitzgerald are highlighted

 

Quite frightening really

 

There is no easy and no speedy way for the US Navy to sort this one.

Very informative post Thankyou 

[nauseus]

On 6/17/2017 at 8:31 AM, quadperfect said:

Ais ,radar ,watch  command .

As a american i am truly embarrassed.

This should never happen ever. Remember the uss cole incident.

 

I'm glad you volunteered that, far too many collisions involving US warships.

 

But the Cole was actually damaged in a terrorist attack. - quite different. 

 

I know from experience that they don't like to give way (even if they don't have right of way) but what's the point of risking collision if they are not actually fighting? These ships are so well equipped that the only acceptable excuses for a collision are mechanical or technical failure, or a deliberate ramming in combat. 

Edited January 15, 2019 by nauseus

[melvinmelvin]

56 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I'm glad you volunteered that, far too many collisions involving US warships.

 

But the Cole was actually damaged in a terrorist attack. - quite different. 

 

I know from experience that they don't like to give way (even if they don't have right of way) but what's the point of risking collision if they are not actually fighting? These ships are so well equipped that the only acceptable excuses for a collision are mechanical or technical failure, or a deliberate ramming in combat. 

 

if you skim through the links I have posted today, (and also earlier for that matter),

 

you will see that major factors here are not less than lack of competence, lack of experience, lack of preparedness re driving vessels - the list goes on and on

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

if you skim through the links I have posted today, (and also earlier for that matter),

 

you will see that major factors here are not less than lack of competence, lack of experience, lack of preparedness re driving vessels - the list goes on and on

Yes, all unacceptable failures.

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes, all unacceptable failures.

well, not acceptable, by all means - but some of these accidents are not easily avoidable

 

I refer you to the American sociologist Perrow and his Normal Accidents theory,

widely accepted as "good stuff" today, all over the world. 

 

In his Normal Accidents book, he explains a series of events/accidents as close to unavoidable, (bound to happen)

includes marine/US Coast Guard accidents, Three Mile Island accidents, the Korean 747 shot down over Sakhalin,

the US Space Shuttle that was blown into fragments minutes after takeoff - just to name a few.

 

if I should try at giving a hint of the gist of the Normal Accidents theory;

it is not mundane factors like a dense fog, forgot steaming lights, AIS screwed, lack of sleep/tiredness that

cause the accidents,

the accidents come as almost necessary consequences of the whole sociological structure

within which the actors live and operate.

 

anyway,

from all the reports from the USN that I have read since the off Japan and off Singapore crashes it seems

that the USN has understood that the Normal Accidents thinking is indeed relevant to these crashes

(they have other crashes too, in similar categories)

some of it they already address in adequate (we hope) manners, some will take years and years and more crashes.

 

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

well, not acceptable, by all means - but some of these accidents are not easily avoidable

 

I refer you to the American sociologist Perrow and his Normal Accidents theory,

widely accepted as "good stuff" today, all over the world. 

 

In his Normal Accidents book, he explains a series of events/accidents as close to unavoidable, (bound to happen)

includes marine/US Coast Guard accidents, Three Mile Island accidents, the Korean 747 shot down over Sakhalin,

the US Space Shuttle that was blown into fragments minutes after takeoff - just to name a few.

 

if I should try at giving a hint of the gist of the Normal Accidents theory;

it is not mundane factors like a dense fog, forgot steaming lights, AIS screwed, lack of sleep/tiredness that

cause the accidents,

the accidents come as almost necessary consequences of the whole sociological structure

within which the actors live and operate.

 

anyway,

from all the reports from the USN that I have read since the off Japan and off Singapore crashes it seems

that the USN has understood that the Normal Accidents thinking is indeed relevant to these crashes

(they have other crashes too, in similar categories)

some of it they already address in adequate (we hope) manners, some will take years and years and more crashes.

 

 

I read the basic theory, which is OK so far as it goes. But the USN is having a very bad run recently and especially with the Fitzgerald with two collisions in as many years. I don't think the Admirals will regard this accident frequency as "normal" or acceptable. But these days...who knows? 

 

The recent USN serious marine accident list is below and it seems only one or two of these occurred when the US was officially at war. If there is no need for close approach then it is not worth the risk but I have seen USN ships do exactly this. During peacetime, risk can generally be reduced for a patrolling warship by just keeping clear of all traffic - they can still easily monitor whatever it is they are interested in and still be in range for their weapons - if there is a war on then that obviously all changes. The supply and support ships listed better fit Perrow's theory; they have to make close approaches as a regular part of their replenishment at sea duties. 

 

Link: https://www.statista.com/chart/10782/us-naval-collisions-are-becoming-more-frequent/

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I read the basic theory, which is OK so far as it goes. But the USN is having a very bad run recently and especially with the Fitzgerald with two collisions in as many years. I don't think the Admirals will regard this accident frequency as "normal" or acceptable. But these days...who knows? 

 

The recent USN serious marine accident list is below and it seems only one or two of these occurred when the US was officially at war. If there is no need for close approach then it is not worth the risk but I have seen USN ships do exactly this. During peacetime, risk can generally be reduced for a patrolling warship by just keeping clear of all traffic - they can still easily monitor whatever it is they are interested in and still be in range for their weapons - if there is a war on then that obviously all changes. The supply and support ships listed better fit Perrow's theory; they have to make close approaches as a regular part of their replenishment at sea duties. 

 

Link: https://www.statista.com/chart/10782/us-naval-collisions-are-becoming-more-frequent/

 

 

 

I miss the destroyer mishap in Hormuz, maybe about 5 years ago, same kind of destroyer as Fitz,

no fatalaties.

 

My "favourite" mishap was in the 70s, a US Coast Guard training vessel

early evening on its way up the river from the Bay, almost cut in two by a container vessel

coming down the river from the Washington DC area,

sank within minutes - several fatalities

Gigantic misunderstandings developed in an unsound sociological structure- typical Normal Accidents

kind of mishap

 

[tifino]

Out of Philippine, and into Japanese waters...

 - they forgot to glide on the other side of the road!

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I miss the destroyer mishap in Hormuz, maybe about 5 years ago, same kind of destroyer as Fitz,

no fatalaties.

 

My "favourite" mishap was in the 70s, a US Coast Guard training vessel

early evening on its way up the river from the Bay, almost cut in two by a container vessel

coming down the river from the Washington DC area,

sank within minutes - several fatalities

Gigantic misunderstandings developed in an unsound sociological structure- typical Normal Accidents

kind of mishap

 

Training? Wonder who was driving? Some careers cut short. RIP. 

[melvinmelvin]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Training? Wonder who was driving? Some careers cut short. RIP. 

Yes, training vessel.

At the time, the driver was a very experienced US Coast Guard captain, (survived).

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

Some new evidence re the Fitz crash has recently popped up,

a photo that was taken very shortly before the crash

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/16/photo-emerges-that-might-exonerate-fitz-defendant/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NT 1-16-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

Not so interesting in my view, but navy lawyers are busy with it

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

This one is interesting, indeed;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/23/how-the-court-martial-against-the-fitzs-former-co-was-thrown-into-disarray-this-week/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NT 1-23-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

A navy judge has stopped just short of ditching all charges against Mr Benson, the master of the Fitz.

Judge not happy with the process.

The investigating admiral who also brought the charges has not acted in a neutral manner and has not acted

in line with military process rules.