Exclusive - U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning: container ship captain

[webfact]

Exclusive - U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning: container ship captain

By Tim Kelly

 

FILE PHOTO: The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald, damaged by colliding with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel, is towed into the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, Japan June 17, 2017. REUTERS/Toru Hanai/File Photo

 

TOKYO (Reuters) - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain.

 

Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.

 

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signalled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

 

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

 

The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.

 

The collision tore a gash below the Fitzgerald's waterline, killing seven sailors in what was the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen's Aden harbour in 2000.

 

Those who died were in their berthing compartments, while the Fitzgerald's commander was injured in his cabin, suggesting that no alarm warning of an imminent collision was sounded.

 

A spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, the Fitzgerald's home port, said he was unable to comment on an ongoing investigation.

 

The incident has spurred six investigations, including two internal hearings by the U.S. Navy and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Japan Transport Safety Board, the JCG and the Philippines government are also conducting separate investigations.

 

Spokesmen from the Japan Coast Guard (JCG), U.S. Coast Guard and ship owner, Dainichi Invest, also declined to comment. Reuters was not able to contact Advincula, who was no longer in Japan.

 

The investigations will examine witness testimony and electronic data to determine how a naval destroyer fitted with sophisticated radar could be struck by a vessel more than three times its size.

 

Another focus of the probes has been the length of time it took the ACX Crystal to report the collision. The JCG says it was first notified at 2:25 a.m., nearly an hour after the accident.

 

In his report, the ACX Crystal's captain said there was "confusion" on his ship's bridge, and that it turned around and returned to the collision site after continuing for 6 nautical miles (11 km).

 

Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows that the ACX Crystal, chartered by Japan's Nippon Yusen KK <9101.T>, made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m.

 

(Reporting by Tim Kelly; Additional reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo; Editing by Alex Richardson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-27

[colinneil]

Sounds like, we are a US warship we move over for no-one.

[darksidedog]

Sounds like they didn't have a clue there were other vessels in the area, which given the technology aboard, is truly disgraceful.

[rijb]

A dash cam would have settled this.

[johnkirks]

Bridge cam?

 

[quadperfect]

Military marvels

[tomwct]

As a former US Navy man, someone was asleep at the Helm. Whoever was the Deck Officer at the time, as well as the Captain, they will have a court martial and shortly thereafter a discharge. Their careers are over!

[mfd101]

47 minutes ago, tomwct said:

As a former US Navy man, someone was asleep at the Helm. Whoever was the Deck Officer at the time, as well as the Captain, they will have a court martial and shortly thereafter a discharge. Their careers are over!

That's for sure. Seen it before in the RAN.

[AhFarangJa]

Reminds me of something.........ah yes........here we are..........

This is based on an actual radio conversation between a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier (U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln) and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. (The radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on 10/10/95 authorized by the Freedom of Information Act.)

Canadians:  Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid collision.

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

Canadians:  Negative.  You will have to 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 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–I SAY AGAIN, 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.

[Inepto Cracy]

All false reporting. The containership used a limited emp to disable the ship, turn back and ram her. Battleship was dead in the water.

No, I am not going to give you evidence, you can look in the navy site, youtube and google yourself. Get your mind out if the box please.

 

 

[klauskunkel]

brake failure and u-turn..., sounds familiar

[boomerangutang]

Was the captain drunk?   .....like the skipper of the Exxon Valdez?   If so, then it's also a drug-related crime.

 

[jobwolf]

2 hours ago, colinneil said:

Sounds like, we are a US warship we move over for no-one.

Next time they will try it on a rock with a lighthouse standing on top of it.

Typical American arrogance, or did the Sailors caps slip over their eyes?

[HuaHinHim]

Having worked at sea for the last 30+ years and for the last 17 years with Filipinos, I find the container ship captains statement if true to be a typical Asian response when their responsibility or their actions are called into question. While I can also say that military vessels often act as if they can go and do whatever they want at times, the Captains statement that he turned hard to Starboard and then hit the warship 10 minutes later just doesn't fly. I will add that I have sailed with some very good Filipinos who are very competent at their job. No matter what anyone thinks, it is obvious in this instance that both vessel clearly were not following the prescribed rule of the road and will be both at fault. Both Bridge watch officers and their respective look outs were negligent and have together caused the unnecessary death of 7 people.

 

Condolences to the US sailors families

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, tomwct said:

As a former US Navy man, someone was asleep at the Helm. Whoever was the Deck Officer at the time, as well as the Captain, they will have a court martial and shortly thereafter a discharge. Their careers are over!

Yeap.  Careers have ended for much less (e.g., collisions at sea with no fatalities).  But this was gross negligence resulting in the death of 7 sailors, as well as massive damage to the ship.  Heads will roll, starting with the CO.

[FritsSikkink]

Copy something from Reuters doesn't make it exclusive anymore.

[shaurene]

When I was training for my private pilots licence long time ago we were told that when on a possible collision coarse  that each aircraft must turn to Port, left they them move into a turn opposite to each other. I think it was port but common sense to do this. So really both of them should have turned to the left.

[Dustdevil]

The US captain's career is over. The only question is, to what extent--a demotion along with a desk in a basement in Alaska, or outright dismissal. In a congested shipping lane like this, it's SOP in the US Navy--or at least ships that I know of--for the captain to be awoken if another ship comes within 4,000 yards. Meanwhile, what on earth were the lookouts and the radar operators doing?  A destroyer is highly maneuverable, so there's no excuse here--the incompetence of a container ship's officers is irrelevant.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Dustdevil

[Dustdevil]

1 hour ago, Inepto Cracy said:

All false reporting. The containership used a limited emp to disable the ship, turn back and ram her. Battleship was dead in the water.

No, I am not going to give you evidence, you can look in the navy site, youtube and google yourself. Get your mind out if the box please.

 

 

That's not even a battleship. The battleship was a WWII-era vessel, the largest type except for fleet carriers.

[ballpoint]

27 minutes ago, shaurene said:

When I was training for my private pilots licence long time ago we were told that when on a possible collision coarse  that each aircraft must turn to Port, left they them move into a turn opposite to each other. I think it was port but common sense to do this. So really both of them should have turned to the left.

 

From:

 https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Collision-regulations

 

Based on:

 

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (Colregs) 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Was the captain drunk?   .....like the skipper of the Exxon Valdez?   If so, then it's also a drug-related crime.

 

 

The Valdez skipper was not drunk at the time of the accident. And he was not blamed for that, (by the authorities).

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, HuaHinHim said:

Having worked at sea for the last 30+ years and for the last 17 years with Filipinos, I find the container ship captains statement if true to be a typical Asian response when their responsibility or their actions are called into question. While I can also say that military vessels often act as if they can go and do whatever they want at times, the Captains statement that he turned hard to Starboard and then hit the warship 10 minutes later just doesn't fly. I will add that I have sailed with some very good Filipinos who are very competent at their job. No matter what anyone thinks, it is obvious in this instance that both vessel clearly were not following the prescribed rule of the road and will be both at fault. Both Bridge watch officers and their respective look outs were negligent and have together caused the unnecessary death of 7 people.

 

Condolences to the US sailors families

 

Agree, 10 minutes and hard over and then bang does not add up at all.

Sounds like, as you say, a typical Asian response.

 

[whaleboneman]

1 hour ago, Inepto Cracy said:

All false reporting. The containership used a limited emp to disable the ship, turn back and ram her. Battleship was dead in the water.

No, I am not going to give you evidence, you can look in the navy site, youtube and google yourself. Get your mind out if the box please.

 

 

Appropriate username.

[whaleboneman]

45 minutes ago, shaurene said:

When I was training for my private pilots licence long time ago we were told that when on a possible collision coarse  that each aircraft must turn to Port, left they them move into a turn opposite to each other. I think it was port but common sense to do this. So really both of them should have turned to the left.

So two aircraft approaching head on in a near miss path that would see them pass each other on their port sides both turn to port and guarantee a collision?

[manarak]

does it make sense that the Crystal made a sharp right turn to first avoid the destroyer only to hit it 10 minutes later ?????

 

on this youtube animation of the Crystal's movements, the story is pretty clear:

 

the destroyer gets hit at approximatively 16:30, the crystal makes a sharp right turn, probably deflected by the collision.

at the time, there is nobody on the bridge and the autopilot is steering.

 

16:35 ... the Crystal's autopilot steers the ship back on course.

staff has been alerted by the collision and goes to the bridge, wondering <deleted> happened.

 

the Fitzgerald's comms have reportedly been disabled by the collision - I'm a bit surprised by this, I would have bet a ship that size would have a backup comms system as well as backup comms room.

so... comms disabled - the first thing I would do is put the lights on, so other ships can assist.

 

confusion on the Crystal - did we hit something? what? are we taking water? what is the damage?

and most importantly: is it safe to make a U-turn ?

16:45: I don't know when the Fitz turned the lights on, but at that time, maybe it was seen by the Crystal which then did a U-turn to assist.

 

17:30 -18:00: the Crystal nearly stopped near the Fitz which I suppose to be barely afloat and not moving much. The Crystal appears to have circled the Fitz, maybe to try helping the Fitz assess damage.

I guess comms were repaired on the Fitz at that time and they told the Crystal they would make it back to Yokosuka without assistance.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by manarak

[manarak]

I wonder when we will know something about what happened on the Fitzgerald.

[manarak]

and that part is obvious bullshit:

Quote

The Crystal steered hard to starboard to avoid the destroyer, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to Advincula's report that was seen by Reuters. 

the AIS data clearly shows the sharp right turn occured at 16:30.

 

The Crystal captain is trying to save face because there was no one on the Crystal's bridge methinks.

Edited June 27, 2017 by manarak

[nahkit]

39 minutes ago, whaleboneman said:

So two aircraft approaching head on in a near miss path that would see them pass each other on their port sides both turn to port and guarantee a collision?

You need to have a little think about that.

 

 

[CliffH]

"16:35 ... the Crystal's autopilot steers the ship back on course.

staff has been alerted by the collision and goes to the bridge, wondering <deleted> happened."

 

Vessel underway and no one on the bridge?  Things have changed quite a bit since I was a merchant navy R/O then.

[manarak]

6 minutes ago, CliffH said:

"16:35 ... the Crystal's autopilot steers the ship back on course.

staff has been alerted by the collision and goes to the bridge, wondering <deleted> happened."

 

Vessel underway and no one on the bridge?  Things have changed quite a bit since I was a merchant navy R/O then.

or there was someone who didn't intervene in the ship's steering...

 

what explanation could there be for the Crystal steering back onto a perfect course heading to Tokyo after the collision other than the autopilot steering the ship?

 

if someone was on the bridge, why did the Crystal initiate the U-Turn only 30 minutes later?

Edited June 27, 2017 by manarak