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

[tandor]

5 hours 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!

..you forgot to mention the 7 sailors who's lives are over..RIP.

[melvinmelvin]

That video does not show the whereabouts of the MoW

Hence somewhat far fetched to speculate about what took place where and when me thinks

[NanLaew]

4 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

That video does not show the whereabouts of the MoW

Hence somewhat far fetched to speculate about what took place where and when me thinks

Yes. Container ships are lurching 90 degrees off course all the time.

[off road pat]

5 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

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.

I read the same story but involving a Spanish lighthouse !!! as much as I would love it to be true, It appears to be a Urban Legend !!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend

Edited June 27, 2017 by off road pat

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Was the captain drunk?

He wasn't on deck at the time of the collision.

[ThaiWai]

3 hours ago, manarak said:

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.

 

 

All very interesting but it seems the report from the Filipino captain was good enough for the readers of Thai Visa to condemn the warship crew and captain.  The Crystal captain has now also apparently released a video of his own radar screen that he claims supports his claim of "It wasn't me".

 

 

[manarak]

31 minutes ago, ThaiWai said:

All very interesting but it seems the report from the Filipino captain was good enough for the readers of Thai Visa to condemn the warship crew and captain.  The Crystal captain has now also apparently released a video of his own radar screen that he claims supports his claim of "It wasn't me".

 

 

your post seems a tad disrespectful in regard to the loss of life.

 

and even without the Filipino captain's report, the Fitzgerald always seemed 99% responsible for the collision.

 

[The Dark Lord]

5 hours 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

The last rule in the Rules and Regulations for Prevention of Collision at Sea  ( forgive me if I am not 100% accurate as it was some time ago I memorised this) 

"Notwithstanding any of the rules contained in..........." and it basically goes on to say that irrespective of if you are in the right or not you have a duty of care to take appropriate action to avoid a collision. And in all cases not one party is ever held  100% to blame.

 

Buggered if you do and buggered if you don't.

 

cracking example is that if a ship plods into you whilst you are at anchor, it may be construed as being partially your fault. ( for the non nautical coves a,ingest us it's like you sitting in your car in a car park with the engine off and some clown drives into you. You have to share a portion of the blame)

 

Now looking at the claim by the captain of the ACX vessel, he turned to Starboard but looking at the damage on the USS Nathan James it looks like it was hit by a vessel coming in from the starboard side so  the inference is the ACX turned into the USS Nathan James. 

 

Bloody hell the last ship is sunk. 

 

Broke  my heart to see the poor old girl getting towed into harbour. My mood only improved when I saw the HMS Queen Lizzy sail out of  Scrotland today.

 

God how I miss messing about in boats.......

Edited June 27, 2017 by The Dark Lord

[ThaiWai]

58 minutes ago, manarak said:

your post seems a tad disrespectful in regard to the loss of life.

 

and even without the Filipino captain's report, the Fitzgerald always seemed 99% responsible for the collision.

 

People die everyday.  I don't have time to cry for all of them.  I have personally delivered more bodies to the morgue than I care to remember but someone has to do the dirty work.  If you need alone time with a box of tissues by all means go to your safe place and mourn privately.  My point, which you missed, was this was a one sided report from someone who has everything to loose.  But it seems you are one of the lead investigators that has assessed a 99% fault of the Navy vessel and 1% fault to the Crystal and closed your investigation already so what does it matter.  Though, I would love to hear how you explain a warship traveling sideways through the water striking midship into another vessel in the bow.

[manarak]

1 hour ago, ThaiWai said:

People die everyday.  I don't have time to cry for all of them.  I have personally delivered more bodies to the morgue than I care to remember but someone has to do the dirty work.  If you need alone time with a box of tissues by all means go to your safe place and mourn privately.  My point, which you missed, was this was a one sided report from someone who has everything to loose.  But it seems you are one of the lead investigators that has assessed a 99% fault of the Navy vessel and 1% fault to the Crystal and closed your investigation already so what does it matter.  Though, I would love to hear how you explain a warship traveling sideways through the water striking midship into another vessel in the bow.

That's what I would like to know too!

I don't believe the Filipino captain's story either.

 

But for assigning responsibility, the explanation how the Fitz put itself in a position to be rammed by a ship on steady course and autopilot seems irrelevant, as the Crystal had - from my understanding - the right of way and the Fitz was probably running dark and minimzing radar echo, in addition to not sending AIS signals but receiving those of the Crystal.

I doubt that the Crystal was aware of the proximity of the Fitz before the collision and the opposite is probably true also, although that should be impossible on an AEGIS warship.

 

What you have to ask yourself is - how could ANY explanation of how the Fitz got into this position possibly exonerate it from blame ?

Any way I look at it, I see no way to blame the container ship.

[manarak]

2 hours ago, The Dark Lord said:

The last rule in the Rules and Regulations for Prevention of Collision at Sea  ( forgive me if I am not 100% accurate as it was some time ago I memorised this) 

"Notwithstanding any of the rules contained in..........." and it basically goes on to say that irrespective of if you are in the right or not you have a duty of care to take appropriate action to avoid a collision. And in all cases not one party is ever held  100% to blame.

 

Buggered if you do and buggered if you don't.

 

cracking example is that if a ship plods into you whilst you are at anchor, it may be construed as being partially your fault. ( for the non nautical coves a,ingest us it's like you sitting in your car in a car park with the engine off and some clown drives into you. You have to share a portion of the blame)

 

Now looking at the claim by the captain of the ACX vessel, he turned to Starboard but looking at the damage on the USS Nathan James it looks like it was hit by a vessel coming in from the starboard side so  the inference is the ACX turned into the USS Nathan James. 

 

Bloody hell the last ship is sunk. 

 

Broke  my heart to see the poor old girl getting towed into harbour. My mood only improved when I saw the HMS Queen Lizzy sail out of  Scrotland today.

 

God how I miss messing about in boats.......

Nathan James?

been reading too many sci-fi novels?

 

the Fitzgerald's collision is very similar to this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Porter_(DDG-78)

 

almost same place of impact, same angles, also a Japanese-chartered ship.

 

[lvr181]

9 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

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.

Damn.....you beat me to it! Says something about U.S. Navy thinking? Apparently an Urban Legend but a good one 

[how241]

Amazing story.  The ocean is so big and these things happen.

[Gulfsailor]

11 hours 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.

A ship is not a plane. Rules for collision avoidance on the water dictate that vessels turn to starboard. 

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, manarak said:

That's what I would like to know too!

I don't believe the Filipino captain's story either.

 

But for assigning responsibility, the explanation how the Fitz put itself in a position to be rammed by a ship on steady course and autopilot seems irrelevant, as the Crystal had - from my understanding - the right of way and the Fitz was probably running dark and minimzing radar echo, in addition to not sending AIS signals but receiving those of the Crystal.

I doubt that the Crystal was aware of the proximity of the Fitz before the collision and the opposite is probably true also, although that should be impossible on an AEGIS warship.

 

What you have to ask yourself is - how could ANY explanation of how the Fitz got into this position possibly exonerate it from blame ?

Any way I look at it, I see no way to blame the container ship.

That is the kind of info I am waiting for from USN

 

Steaming lights on

Ais sender on

Radar echoing on

etc-

 

Without these on in busy lanes you are asking for problems

[melvinmelvin]

6 hours ago, The Dark Lord said:

The last rule in the Rules and Regulations for Prevention of Collision at Sea  ( forgive me if I am not 100% accurate as it was some time ago I memorised this) 

"Notwithstanding any of the rules contained in..........." and it basically goes on to say that irrespective of if you are in the right or not you have a duty of care to take appropriate action to avoid a collision. And in all cases not one party is ever held  100% to blame.

 

Buggered if you do and buggered if you don't.

 

cracking example is that if a ship plods into you whilst you are at anchor, it may be construed as being partially your fault. ( for the non nautical coves a,ingest us it's like you sitting in your car in a car park with the engine off and some clown drives into you. You have to share a portion of the blame)

 

Now looking at the claim by the captain of the ACX vessel, he turned to Starboard but looking at the damage on the USS Nathan James it looks like it was hit by a vessel coming in from the starboard side so  the inference is the ACX turned into the USS Nathan James. 

 

Bloody hell the last ship is sunk. 

 

Broke  my heart to see the poor old girl getting towed into harbour. My mood only improved when I saw the HMS Queen Lizzy sail out of  Scrotland today.

 

God how I miss messing about in boats.......

 

Please dont bring cars and parking lots into this

Blame

Responsibility

Fault

Who pays

At sea is not subject to or following the same logic or rules that people are familiar with re cars

[nkg]

They will have to buy a copy of this:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/product-reviews/0870334336

 

[observer90210]

Typical bird brain attitude..."you move out of the way first"....

[Salerno]

17 hours 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.

[Stargeezr]

The freighter is so much bigger than the navy ship, I would hope that the Egos on the navy ship were not what caused this accident.  If it was the Navy Ego  then all the deck heads need to roll.

Geezer

[The Dark Lord]

13 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Please dont bring cars and parking lots into this

Blame

Responsibility

Fault

Who pays

At sea is not subject to or following the same logic or rules that people are familiar with re cars

If you read what I wrote my friend I was drawing an analogy for the non nautical coves on TVF. 

 

Having captained ULCC's down to Chemical tankers in all the oceans of the world I am aware of the differences. 

[thehelmsman]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 4:37 PM, darksidedog said:

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

They have lookouts with binoculars....always.

[spidermike007]

I am finding this astonishing. This ship has the most advanced technology out there. How could they not be aware of this container ship within their periphery? They must have all sorts of warning systems, alerting them to  ship being so close. Was this just gross negligence on the part of the captain, or admiral? Some insight?

 

If the crew of the Fitzgerald was watching what was ahead of them and got used to the presence of the container ship on their starboard quarter because it didn't appear to be moving in either direction relative to the destroyer — even though it was getting closer all the while — the sailors might not have realized what was happening until they were in extremis.

Another similar possibility: the Fitzgerald wanted to sail east, say, and its course crossed over that of the Crystal, heading north. The destroyer might have been like someone trying to get across a busy street, thinking it could get out of the way of the oncoming cars in time — in this case, a miscalculation.

Investigators will focus closely on what the crews on both ships were doing. When the fast attack submarine USS Hartford collided with the amphibious transport USS New Orleans in 2009, discipline on the sub was lax, the Navy later found. The Hartford's captain never came into the control room during the transit through the crowded Strait of Hormuz. The navigator was in the wardroom listening to his iPod.

 

http://www.wbur.org/npr/533432845/how-could-the-navy-destroyer-collision-happen

 

 

[thehelmsman]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 7:50 PM, 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.

Turning to port is the last move you'd want to make. You'd better have a good reason for doing so.

[Berkshire]

9 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

They have lookouts with binoculars....always.

Yeap, lookouts, forward and aft, port and starboard.  And personnel on the bridge.  And of course, state-of-the-art radar that has been mentioned ad nauseam.  There's simply no excuse for this.  I think it's simply inattention, that time of night, personnel goofing-off at the precise moment they shouldn't have been.  Nothing nefarious, no drugs or alcohol.  Just negligence.  Nevertheless, they will get hammered.  Well, the officers anyways. 

[wabothai]

4 hours ago, The Dark Lord said:

If you read what I wrote my friend I was drawing an analogy for the non nautical coves on TVF. 

 

Having captained ULCC's down to Chemical tankers in all the oceans of the world I am aware of the differences. 

Let us hear your take on the situation please.

[The Dark Lord]

2 minutes ago, wabothai said:

Let us hear your take on the situation please.

I do not have sufficient information to take an educated position on the issue. All I can say is I was sad to see the poor old lady being towed into the Japanese port in such a state. 

 

Ultimately both will share the blame but the ratio I would not wish to guess. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by The Dark Lord

[hawker9000]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 0:02 AM, ThaiWai said:

All very interesting but it seems the report from the Filipino captain was good enough for the readers of Thai Visa to condemn the warship crew and captain.  The Crystal captain has now also apparently released a video of his own radar screen that he claims supports his claim of "It wasn't me".

 

 

If it in any way bears even the remotest hint of possible incompetence or arrogance on the part of the US Captain or crew, then of course the America-hating Girls Chorus & Glee Club here will be all over it.  The repetitive chanting & murmuring has a certain childlike nursery rhyme simplicity to it, but without the intellectual content or editorial value... 

[tpinvest]

There are stories in the non-mainstream media that the container ship did a large u-turn just before the crash to line up

deliberately to strike the Fitxgerald amidships. The report goes on to say that prior to the collision the US ship had been attacked with some kind of electronic device which knocked out all it's systems.

 

If this is in fact true why are the Americans remaining quiet about it????

 

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, tpinvest said:

There are stories in the non-mainstream media that the container ship did a large u-turn just before the crash to line up

deliberately to strike the Fitxgerald amidships. The report goes on to say that prior to the collision the US ship had been attacked with some kind of electronic device which knocked out all it's systems.

 

If this is in fact true why are the Americans remaining quiet about it????

 

 

 

Did it also knock out the bridge and deck crew as well.

 

And if it is not true..... then what.

 

Would you care to post some links to these non-mainstream media stories so that people can check them out?

 

Do they also report flying saucers in the area at the time.