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

[webfact]

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.

 

Admiral Bill Moran, deputy chief of naval operations, told reporters the ship's commanding officer, executive officer and master chief petty officer would be removed from the vessel because "we've lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead."

 

Moran said that in total close to a dozen sailors would face administrative punishment and left open the possibility for further action.

 

FILE PHOTO : The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald, damaged by colliding with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel, is seen at the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka,, Japan June 18, 2017. REUTERS/Toru Hanai/File Photo

 

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

 

The Navy also released a report that provided new details of the crash and its aftermath.

 

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.

 

The report said the collision at 1:30 am local time sent water pouring into the U.S. warship.

 

"Water on deck," sailors in a berthing started yelling. "Get out," they shouted as mattresses, furniture and even an exercise bicycle began to float.

 

Within 60 seconds, the berthing was completely flooded. More than two dozen of the 35 sailors in it escaped. The last sailor to be rescued was in the bathroom at the time of the collision.

 

"Lockers were floating past him... at one point he was pinned between the lockers and the ceiling of Berthing 2, but was able to reach for a pipe in the ceiling to pull himself free," the report said.

 

Two sailors stayed at the foot of the ladder in the compartment to help others escape.

 

"The choices made by these two sailors likely saved the lives of at least two of their shipmates," the report says.

 

The commanding officer was trapped in his cabin, and five sailors used a sledgehammer to break through the door.

 

"Even after the door was open, there was a large amount of debris and furniture against the door, preventing anyone from entering or exiting easily," the report said.

 

The sailors tied themselves together with a belt and rescued the commanding officer, who by this point was hanging from the side of the ship.

 

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-18

[Thian]

What happened? Was the captain asleep or what? And the captain of that containership, what was he doing?

[binjalin]

31 minutes ago, Thian said:

What happened? Was the captain asleep or what? And the captain of that containership, what was he doing?

Yes he and the Exec were asleep. It was disastrous but I sort of feel for him and the Exec as they should have been able to have confidence in the bridge crew but their careers are over.

[tonray]

26 minutes ago, binjalin said:

Yes he and the Exec were asleep. It was disastrous but I sort of feel for him and the Exec as they should have been able to have confidence in the bridge crew but their careers are over.

If the crew was negligent en masse then the captain was likely irresponsible for maintaining a ship without proper discipline. His career deserves to be finished.

 

I do want to add however, that the sailors who risked their lives to save others should seriously be considered for the medal of honor in this case.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, binjalin said:

Yes he and the Exec were asleep. It was disastrous but I sort of feel for him and the Exec as they should have been able to have confidence in the bridge crew but their careers are over.

More indicative of a command that didn't. Good command would instill confidence in a bridge watch. Good command would see deficiencies in a bridge watch. Good command would rectify said deficiencies in a bridge watch. This command was literally asleep at the wheel.

 

By the same token, this also applies completely to the command of the container ship. The US Navy have acted. Let's see if a Filipino skipper and exec get their tickets pulled.

[impulse]

52 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

More indicative of a command that didn't. Good command would instill confidence in a bridge watch. Good command would see deficiencies in a bridge watch. Good command would rectify said deficiencies in a bridge watch. This command was literally asleep at the wheel.

 

By the same token, this also applies completely to the command of the container ship. The US Navy have acted. Let's see if a Filipino skipper and exec get their tickets pulled.

 

Prosecuting a guy for something that happened while he was not awake- or even supposed to be awake?   Where do you stop?  If the captain was incompetent, shouldn't they be prosecuting his superiors who put and left an incompetent in charge of a billion dollar ship?  And on up the line?  

 

Take him off the ship, sure.  But ending his career, or even prosecuting him for something that happened while he was off duty asleep?  Seems like an awful waste of the $$ millions of tax dollars we spent developing him.  

 

 

[maximillian]

12 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Prosecuting a guy for something that happened while he was not awake- or even supposed to be awake?   Where do you stop?  If the captain was incompetent, shouldn't they be prosecuting his superiors who put and left an incompetent in charge of a billion dollar ship?  And on up the line?  

 

Take him off the ship, sure.  But ending his career, or even prosecuting him for something that happened while he was off duty asleep?  Seems like an awful waste of the $$ millions of tax dollars we spent developing him.  

 

 

Remember, armies are mercyless.

[hawker9000]

'Sounds like some deficiency in their operational/seamanship training I guess.  But I'll just bet they had all their blocks checked for their multicultural and gender awareness training...

 

 

[halloween]

6 hours ago, tonray said:

If the crew was negligent en masse then the captain was likely irresponsible for maintaining a ship without proper discipline. His career deserves to be finished.

 

I do want to add however, that the sailors who risked their lives to save others should seriously be considered for the medal of honor in this case.

They are not eligible.

The act also clarified that the act of valor must occur during one of three circumstances:

While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States

While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.

While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

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

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Prosecuting a guy for something that happened while he was not awake- or even supposed to be awake?   Where do you stop?  If the captain was incompetent, shouldn't they be prosecuting his superiors who put and left an incompetent in charge of a billion dollar ship?  And on up the line?  

 

Take him off the ship, sure.  But ending his career, or even prosecuting him for something that happened while he was off duty asleep?  Seems like an awful waste of the $$ millions of tax dollars we spent developing him.  

 

 

The Captain is responsible for the ship, awake, asleep, it does not matter. It doesn't matter if other crew members were negligent, the Captain is responsible for the ship. It is a heavy, unrelenting responsibility that he lives with every day he is in command of the vessel. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it should remain. If you don't like it, or think it is unfair don't join the Navy.

[tonray]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

They are not eligible.

The act also clarified that the act of valor must occur during one of three circumstances:

While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States

While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.

While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

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

that sucks.. at least a commendation 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The Captain is responsible for the ship, awake, asleep, it does not matter. It doesn't matter if other crew members were negligent, the Captain is responsible for the ship. It is a heavy, unrelenting responsibility that he lives with every day he is in command of the vessel. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it should remain. If you don't like it, or think it is unfair don't join the Navy.

 

No need to worry about that.  I spent my career in fields where waste was frowned upon, not embraced as a badge of honor.  There's a lot of great things about the military.  Efficient management isn't one of them.

 

[rijb]

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

No need to worry about that.  I spent my career in fields where waste was frowned upon, not embraced as a badge of honor.  There's a lot of great things about the military.  Efficient management isn't one of them.

 

How do you define 'efficient management'?

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, rijb said:

How do you define 'efficient management'?

 

I can tell you that if we spent $$ millions of dollars on training an employee, we wouldn't end his career for something his subordinates did or didn't do while he was sleeping.  That's a waste of those $$$.

 

[rijb]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I can tell you that if we spent $$ millions of dollars on training an employee, we wouldn't end his career for something his subordinates did or didn't do while he was sleeping.  That's a waste of those $$$.

 

I think the loss of life outweighs the loss of $$$.

[amvet]

How does this relate to my Thailand experiences?  My wife and I sat in front of our giant TV with CNN news on as the first reports came in.  Me being a constant critic of CNN's reporting skill said, "Dummies, it's obvious it is the American ship's fault."  Simple matter of knowing which direction the ships were going and on what side they hit."  My wife replied, I was a smart ass know it all and we should wait for the investigation.  Hrrrumph, says I as the rules of the sea are a thousand years old and any old salt such as myself knows them backwards and forwards.  My wife stomped out to the kitchen mumbling about I really didn't know more than the experts at CNN.  Me chanting after her, a dumb monkey knows more than anyone at CNN let alone your brilliant husband.  

 

Now I'm sitting here wondering if I should tell her the results are in and I was correct?  Hmmm, do I want to sleep alone for a few days? 

 

This ties into that other topic about Thai people never being wrong or able to take constructive criticism.

[Jai Dee]

An off-topic troll post and reply has been removed from this thread.

[Grouse]

Nobody in charge!

[metisdead]

A post containing off topic deflection comments has been removed. 

[Ulic]

I am still scratching my head over this. With AIS and the most advanced

radar system in the world, a highly trained professional crew. There were

multiple levels of failure on the bridge for this to happen. While many here

don't believe the Captain should be held responsible as he was asleep, I

believe he should. He left the ship in command of someone incompetent.

With AIS operational on the container vessel I would have thought this was

impossible never mind the radar systems.

[hawker9000]

12 hours ago, halloween said:

They are not eligible.

The act also clarified that the act of valor must occur during one of three circumstances:

While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States

While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.

While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

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

There are other decorations they WOULD BE eligible for, and I'm sure those'll be coming.   It is ashame though that members of the public don't understand what the MOH is really for.

[IAMHERE]

Isn't there a bell or alarm to be activated when a collision is about to occur? So the crew wouldn't get caught in their bunks.  It seems this crash happened and know one was aware of it going to happen, didn't know until after the collision that there was even a danger of colliding. Something really was wrong on that US ship, probably both ships.

[Tug]

There was a basic failure in seamanship on the navy side, a vessel approaching your right side makes you the give way vessel the navy should have changed course also a container ship is a (ram) vessel (ie)restricted ability to maneuver it is clearly a basic failure in seamanship on the navy's side my condolences to the ones who lost their lives and to the ruined careers of the navel personnel 

[manarak]

If anyone is interested, the New York Times offers a link to a partially redacted Navy report on the collision.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/17/world/asia/document-navy-report-on-uss-fitzgerald.html?mcubz=1

 

How the Navy could release such a report is beyond me, because while it describes what happened after the collision, there is strictly no explanation of what led to the collision.

It's pretty irritating that so much has been reported about what happened, but not on why it happened.

 

If I remember correctly, a senior officer said "inadequate leadership" was at least partly to blame for making the collision possible, but I would certainly prefer actual explanations.

 

The Fitzgerald's leaders being relieved of command makes me wonder about older comments like these:

Quote

Commander Destroyer Squadron 15, Capt. Jeffrey Bennett, was the guest speaker for the change of command. “FITZ has always been ready for every task and performed admirably. You set the bar for readiness. You are executing national tasking right now. I am super proud of this crew, you all are rock stars.” said Bennett.

Quote

Benson said in a Navy statement at the time:

"This is the best ship and the best crew on the waterfront, hands down!" he said.

"I am proud to work alongside the Navy's best and brightest men and women who protect and support the Pacific region and our allies."

these statements look particularly silly now, don't they?

 

 

[FreddieRoyle]

Well they leaned nothing. A US destroyer has just crashed into another merchant ship off Singapore. Deja vu all over again!

[NanLaew]

On 8/19/2017 at 2:33 AM, Ulic said:

I am still scratching my head over this. With AIS and the most advanced

radar system in the world, a highly trained professional crew. There were

multiple levels of failure on the bridge for this to happen. While many here

don't believe the Captain should be held responsible as he was asleep, I

believe he should. He left the ship in command of someone incompetent.

With AIS operational on the container vessel I would have thought this was

impossible never mind the radar systems.

US Navy vessels, like most other naval vessels worldwide, are AIS (automatic identity system) equipped but it is not fully enabled. That is one reason why they can't been seen on the commercial websites like marinetraffic.

 

I my experience of encountering USN and their supporting MSC vessels in the East Sea offshore Vietnam, when a non-AIS enabled vessel first appears on the radar as an unidentified target (AIS encodes the vessel name, range, heading and speed encoded in the radar "blip" seen on the other vessels AIS enabled radar), and it appears that the unmarked vessel may approach too close, the bridge watch on my vessel will request via VHF radio for the unmarked vessel's identity and intent. USN vessels usually respond with a generic identifier such as "Navy 04" but no specifics of their course or intent. They will not use their vessel name or fleet number for identification purposes. The bridge watch on the vessel requesting the information will have already used their own radar to plot the USN vessels current course. At this point, the requesting vessel will inform the USN vessel of any hazards to navigation that the requesting vessel presents to all surface traffic and advises the USN ship accordingly. The USN vessel acknowledges but does not confirm if it has altered course and the onus is on the requesting vessel that has by now assigned a 'temporary' radar mark so they can fully track the USN vessel, to observe the USN vessel movements. The USN vessel will give way when advised of the risks of their original course.They are polite and courteous and like all seafarers, sign off wishing the requesting vessel fair seas and safe sailing, which is reciprocated.

 

Any vessel working in commercial sea lanes, congested and otherwise, that does not have AIS automatically enabled does present a higher risk to surface navigation, especially at night. Bridge watches on commercial vessels typically do not need to use the VHF radio as they can see all the AIS-enabled boats on their radar, complete with all the name, course and speed data they need to navigate around any potential hazards, either by changing course or speed. A bit like cars pass trucks on a highway and everyone (mostly) uses signals and manages to keep moving ahead. The vessels I work on run at low-speed and are heavily impaired in speed and course changes due to a long tow behind the vessel. Even then, there can still be 'near misses' when an inattentive bridge watch on a large tanker or container ship, traveling at up to 20 knots, does not respond in a timely manner to VHF radio requests to change course or speed to avoid collision. In these thankfully infrequent instances, the vessel I am on has less than 20 minutes to either get the attention of the fast approaching vessel (via constant hailing on the VHF radio dedicated emergency-only (always monitored) channel, sending support vessels to intercept, signalling lights and last resort pyrotechics (flares), or make our own slow course change clear of danger.

 

This incident offshore Japan happened in relatively open waters but still in a commercial sea lane. This morning's collision between the USS John S McCain and the tanker Alnic MC east of Singapore in the Strait of Malacca, happened pre-dawn in a very busy sea lane. Too early to apportion blame as once again, 5 injured and 10 missing sailors needs to be taken care of first. As in the first instance offshore japan, there are two bridge watches and two vessel masters that are ultimately responsible for whatever crew or vessel inadequacies led to the collision. The US Navy, like most, are quite unforgiving when their vessels are damaged or lost and even more so when lives are lost.

[Basil B]

Quote

US Navy ship and oil tanker collide near Singapore

Ten sailors are missing and five have been injured after a US destroyer and an oil tanker collided near Singapore, the US Navy says.

The guided missile destroyer USS John S McCain was sailing east of Singapore and preparing to stop in the port when the collision with the Liberian-flagged vessel occurred.

A wide-ranging search and rescue operation is under way.

It is the second collision involving a US Navy ship in recent months.

 

2 prangs now in such a short space of time reminds me of the following...

Quote

Believe it or not...this is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995.

 

US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

 

[rijb]

30 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

2 prangs now in such a short space of time reminds me of the following...

 

Your 'story' is a joke/urban legend.  It goes back to 1931, when the same boat/lighthouse idiotic event was communicated over a megaphone.

[dick dasterdly]

On 8/18/2017 at 7:01 PM, Grouse said:

Nobody in charge!

It does sound as if this is the case - the captain and first officer (etc.) asleep at the same time, leaving pretty much nobody in charge?

 

Unfortunately it turns out that none of the remaining, designated crew were paying attention - hence the collision when they didn't even see another ship that had 'right of way' .

[Berkshire]

On 8/18/2017 at 10:15 AM, impulse said:

 

Prosecuting a guy for something that happened while he was not awake- or even supposed to be awake?   Where do you stop?  If the captain was incompetent, shouldn't they be prosecuting his superiors who put and left an incompetent in charge of a billion dollar ship?  And on up the line?  

 

Take him off the ship, sure.  But ending his career, or even prosecuting him for something that happened while he was off duty asleep?  Seems like an awful waste of the $$ millions of tax dollars we spent developing him.  

 

 

This is the US Navy culture, that a Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible.  This is why the job is among the most prestigious in the Navy.  Ever seen the movie(s) Star Trek?  They follow the Navy rank system and the buck ends with the Captain.  And in fact, Captains will complete their tours without a collision-at-sea 99.9% of the time.  So it's hard to be sympathetic to the .01% guys (if it's even that high). 

 

But don't worry, these guys aren't going to jail.  Their careers will be over, sure, and some may even get a general discharge.  But the CO will most likely have 20+ years and eligible for retirement, i.e., a big fat pension for the rest of his life.  But the younger guys, well they'll be unemployed after this...for a little while.